Loading...
1997-03-19 ,.-, ( \ FILE '- QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 19, 1997 INDEX Area Variance No. 4-1997 H. Croswell Tuttle 1. Tax Map No. 1-1-22, 1-1-23.2, 1-1-23.1 Area Variance No. 10-1997 John & Joann Lefner 13. Tax Map No. 152-1-6 Area Variance No. 11-1997 Susse Chalet Inn 22. Tax Map No. 135-2-3.2 Use and Area Variance DISCUSSION ITEM Ben Aronson 25. Area Variance No. 12-1997 Richard Whitmore 26. Tax Map No. 119-1-19.2 Use Variance No. 13-1997 Sascha A. Mehalick 37. Tax Map No. 130-3-44 Area Variance No. 14-1997 M & W Foods, Inc., dba KFC 45 . Tax Map No. 98-4-3 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. r ":¡r., _" f'~ ,. '- ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) QUEENS BURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 19, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS THOMAS, CHAIRMAN BONNIE LAPHAM, SECRETARY BRIAN CUSTER DONALD 0' LEARY LEWIS STONE PAUL HAYES ROBERT KARPELES EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-1997 TYPE II CROSS REF. SUB. NO. 3-1997 WR- 3A/CEA OWNERS: H. CROSWELL TUTTLE, CHARLES H. TUTTLE, III, THOMAS F. CURRIE, III JULIE L. CURRIE, THOMAS F. CURRIE, IV WILLIAM D. CURRIE LOCKHART LOOP ROAD, OFF ROUTE 9L, EAST OF LAKE GEORGE/QUEENS BURY TOWN LINE. APPLICANT PROPOSES THE SUBDIVISION OF A 2.15 ACRE LOT INTO THREE LOTS. THE THREE NEW LOTS WILL NOT CONFORM TO THE SIZE, SETBACK AND WIDTH REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-3A ZONING DISTRICT. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 179-16, WR-3A WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP NO.'S 1-1-22 1-1-23.2 1-1-23.1 LOT SIZE: TOTAL 2.23 ACRES SECTION 179-16 DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; CROSWELL TUTTLE, PRESENT MRS. LAPHAM-I think there is more public comment. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We did receive some new comments. MR. THOMAS-Mr. Meath? MR. RYAN-I'm actually Dan Ryan. I'm with McPhillips, also, but I'm now handling the matter. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Go ahead. MR. RYAN-What had happened was originally, in 1984, this subdivision application had been approved by the Board, and the map was never filed with the County Clerk. Hence it lapsed. So we're actually seeking back approval for the three lots, so Mr. Tuttle can continue to transfer the lots to his children for estate planning purposes, and right now the Zoning Code has changed since it was approved in 1984. So we're in violation of the setback, width and size requirements of the lots. So we'll need variance approval to go forward with the project. MR. THOMAS-Any questions for Mr. Ryan? MR. STONE-The properties, the way they're sitting now is the way they sat 13 years ago? MR. RYAN-Yes, in 1984. MR. STONE-Houses are still where they were then? MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. STONE-I assumed that. - 1 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) MR. THOMAS-Were there any additional buildings put on any of this property since 1984? MR. RYAN-No, nothing since the 1984. It's stayed the same. It's just been being done by deeds, transferring, like I said, for the estate planning purposes, but nothing new has been done to the property. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does anyone else have any questions? MR. KARPELES-What was it you said, the map wasn't filed, or something like that? MR. RYAN-Yes. The subdivision map was not filed in 1984. MR. KARPELES-Why was that? MR. RYAN-I believe it was just a clerical error. It got stuck in the file and was never taken over and filed correctly. MRS. LAPHAM-Are there any future plans to change the property in any way? MR. RYAN-Not at this time, I don't believe there's any chance it's going to change. All we want to do is continue to transfer the properties to Mr. Tuttle's children. MR. THOMAS-AnYmore questions? If not, I left the public hearing open. MR. CUSTER-Currently, there's a driveway that appears to snake between the two properties that you intend to parcel out. Will that continue in that same manner and you'll provide easements? MR. RYAN-Yes. We will provide easements. MR. THOMAS-AnYmore questions? Anyone wishing to speak in favor of the project? Anyone wishing to speak opposed to the project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ED TOOMEY MR. TOOMEY-My name's Ed Toomey. I own the adjoining property to Mr. Tuttle's, I guess. To my knowledge, there isn't any buildings on the, I think it's just the vacant lot now, to my knowledge. If the Zoning Board, as it suggests here, the relief, two of them have 2.515 acres, and if it's only deed or subject to only a two lot building or whatever the case may be, I'd be opposed to it, for a three lot. Mr. Ryan has suggested something about families. I have some exposure with the property in front of me, who is owned presently by Mr. Freihoffer. Prior, way back, I have had the property next door, up above Freihoffer's, for approaching 30 years. In that 30 years, there was, down on the Freihoffer property in front of me, and also adjoining Mr. Tuttle's property, there were two brothers that owned the property down there, and their wives did not get along after two years. The following, the third year they started alternating July and August, and then the following year they would switch back to August and July, so on and so forth. They finally sold the property. They sold it to an O'Brien individual, he and his wife. They have since separated. The theme of family orientation here, it just doesn't blend, because down the road, Joe, maybe the brother, cousin, whatever it may be, he'll sell it for a dollar more than he paid for it, or it's a possibility of any changes, or a lot of changes. So my comments are I'm not in favor of it at all. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak opposed? - 2 - '-- '-..-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. LAPHAM-There's some letters. MR. THOMAS-Okay. letters. Yes. I'll re-open the public hearing for PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. This one's dated March 19th, from F. Van D. Ladd, Attorney at Law, 600 Franklin Street, Schenectady, NY. "Dear Ms. Lapham: As a taxpayer in the Town of Queensbury for thirty (30) years, I have had reason to believe that I did not have much of a voice in any Town matters. However, when the Town government created the Department of Community Development, I took heart as I felt it was a step in the right direction. It was a sound move but apparently it was just 'more government' and a mere gesture to sound development and planning. The sub-division of the Tuttle property has already been created. The deeds on record, see 904 Book of Deeds at Page 154, et seq., Warren County Clerk's office have done that as far as the family, IRS, and any tax avoidance are concerned. This is not a case of a simple mistake or oversight and a good 01' Boy ploy as far as Croswell Tuttle is concerned. Tom Currie, one of the applicants and husband of Julie Tuttle, is an outstanding attorney at a New York State level, and the activity herein is an affront to a sound Town plan. Approval of the Variance by your Board will set a precedent and may well be a forerunner to the applications from others in the immediate neighborhood for similar variances, namely: 1. Burnett on the South of the subj ect property; 2. Ladd on the North of the subj ect property; 3. Sevi ts on the North of the subj ect property; 4. Hedges on the North of the subject property; 5. Barthold on the North of the subject property; 6. Buckwald on the North of the subject property. Listen to your professional staff and take their advice. I do not believe they have approved this subdivision. Thank you for your patience. Very truly yours, F. Van D. Ladd" "Dear Ms. Lapham: I am writing concerning the above application by Croswell Tuttle, et. aI, which is scheduled for Wednesday, February 19, 1997. My notice was mailed on February 11, 1997 and received by me today. Is this adequate Notice under the Zoning Ordinance referred to in your notice? This is a mere 5 days (business days) and it hardly seems adequate. My brother and I, who are the owners of the parcel adjoining Tuttle on the North are not in opposition to this requested variance at this time, but we think that we should be given a reasonable time to investigate and if it is feasible you may have a similar application to subdi vide our property in two parcels. May I hear from you on this? Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Very truly yours, F. Van D. Ladd one of two owners of Parcel 523400 1.-1-24" "Application of Croswell Tuttle WR-3A zone and Critical Environmental Area Area Variance No. 4 -1997 Dear Ms . Lapham: Regarding the referenced application, I wish to record my strong objection to the granting of any variances for the three separate parcels listed on the assessment roll as Thomas and Julie Currie, H. Croswell Tuttle and Charles H. Tuttle, II. These parcels are grossly undersized for the existing WR-3A Waterfront Residential zone and Critical Environmental Area. As we know, the listing of these three separate parcels on the assessment roll does not constitute a subdivision. The Zoning Board of Appeals should not acquiesce to an application that would certainly pave the way for a 3 -lot subdivision in the WR-3A zone and CEA for three parcels that are each under one acre. Such variances would subvert the entire purpose of the WR-3A zone and would set a dangerous precedent, which would surely invite further applications. For sound environmental reasons, the WR-3A zone and CEA should be upheld, not undercut. The lake needs all the protection it can get. It has suffered greatly from the adverse impacts of overdevelopment. As you know, Section 267 of town law (July 1, 1992) directs the ZBA to - 3 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) also consider whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the variance; whether the proposed area variance is substantial; and whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Betty Hedges Summer address: 11 Woods Point Lane, Lake George, NY 12845" That does it. MR. THOMAS-Mr. Ryan, would you like to respond to any of the comments made or letters read? MR. RYAN-Yes. I believe, on the last letter, that the woman may be confused, that we're proposing a new subdivision. I could see where people would be concerned that we were, you know, further subdividing these lots, but what we were doing is just asking that we go back to 1984 and say that what we had done was correct. I think there's some confusion that we're going to be building new lots up there, or anything like that. All we're asking is that what's been done get certified by the Board, and one of the neighbors had mentioned vacant lots. It is ~ belief that he is actually the neighbor of Ms. Burnett, not of Mr. Tuttle, and that's where the vacant land is. Because Mr. Tuttle's land has three homes on it. There's no vacant parcels in the proposed subdivision. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Ryan? MR. O'LEARY-Just one question. Could you help me quantify the original variance, and now the new variance required as the result of the change over the period of time? What was the original variance granted? What is the additional variance now required? MR. RYAN-I don't believe a variance was required the first time out in 1984. From looking at the map, I believe that it was under the Town Zoning Regulations permissible to have lots of that size. MR. O'LEARY-What was granted then? MR. RYAN-It was granted back then. I have the map that's approved. I don't know if I submitted it with my original papers, or if you'd like me to submit that at this time. MR. O'LEARY-Okay, and quantifying now, what is the variance now, that is required? MR. RYAN-We would need variances on the size of the lot, the setback requirements and the width requirements. MR. O'LEARY-Which equate to what? I don't have the map in front of me, unfortunately. My packet didn't have it. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think to help you out a little bit, the WR-3 Acre for three lots, obviously, would require nine acres of area. The lot being subdivided, as I understand it, is 2.15 acres? MR. RYAN-Yes, it is. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So there's relief there of nearly seven acres in the overall, and then, I don't have the maps in front of me, either. They're in the file that Bonnie has. There's additional variances needed for setback and width requirements as well, but the overall area is nearly seven acres of relief, from the total, and you'd have to do the math to di vide that into, for each individual lot, depending on the size of the lot, but the area requirement is three acres per lot, per the Code. - 4 - '--- '--" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) MR. THOMAS-Back then, in 1984 it was? MR. MARTIN-I don't have the old Code with me. I don't know how the zoning map had this, I take the applicant at his word that if he did go through the Planning Board and did not need a variance. Without having the map in front of me, I have to take him at this word. MR. THOMAS-Yes. So the only thing, this is like the one up on Aviation Road where they came here to the Planning Board. They went to the Zoning Board, but they never filed the map. That's the only problem. MR. MARTIN-Well, apparently, back in the mid 80's, he never came to the Zoning Board. He went to the Planning Board for a subdivision. It was your standard subdivision, got it, and there is a requirement in the Subdivision Regulations that the plat be filed at the County, in other words recorded, within 60 days, and if you don't do that, then your approval is void, and you have to start allover again. We've had, probably in the last year or two, we've had three or four applicants who've gotten caught in that same time frame problem, and we actually have one person who came back three times, just never met the filing date. MR. STONE-Jim, was the zoning ever less than one acre? MR. MARTIN-There were zoning districts requiring less than one acre. In this specific area, I don't know. I could go back to the office and get the '82 Zoning map out and check it. We have some in our office and I just didn't bring it with me. MR. THOMAS-But back then the Planning Board would have said, well, this subdivision doesn't meet the zoning for square footage, and he'd have to come in for a variance. MR. MARTIN-It would have had to come for a variance, yes. MR. THOMAS-So we assume that, back then it was okay, but now it's not. MR. MARTIN-That's why I take the applicant at his word, if he said he did it properly. It'll only take a minute to go back and get the old map. MR. THOMAS-Why don't you. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. THOMAS-And we'll talk about this while you're gone. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. THOMAS-Do you have anything else you want to add before I close the public hearing? MR. RYAN-At this point, the only thing I would mention is I have the old signed map by the Planning Board and Building Inspector if anyone would like to take a look at that, if I could get a copy. MR. THOMAS-Is it just like this one here, with the exceptions of the additions of location map, zoning, average lot width and building setback distances? MR. RYAN-All that would stay the same. It's just a more detailed map than '84. MR. THOMAS-Why don't you bring that up here, and we'll take a look at it. I'll close the public hearing. - 5 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-AnYmore questions for the applicant? MR. KARPELES-Well, yes. I'm a little confused here. Number Two and Three that are in question, right? It's Lot MR. RYAN-Lots One, Two and Three. MR. KARPELES-The way that proposing to subdivide an separate lots, which would lots is all squared away. this thing reads, the applicant is existing 1.4 acre property into two lead you to believe that one of those Is that right or is that wrong? MR. RYAN-No. I believe we're proposing to subdivide 2.115 into, 2.15 into three lots. MR. KARPELES-That sure isn't the way it reads on our. MR. O'LEARY-No, right. It doesn't mention Lot One at all, does it? MR. KARPELES-No. MR. O'LEARY-It just talks about two and three. MR. KARPELES-It just mentions two and three. MR. STONE-Well, but their data does, though. Their application talks about 2.151 acres on three different lots. MRS. LAPHAM-And it shows them on the map that we have, three lots. MR. THOMAS-You really can't go by those notes and stuff. MR. STONE-Yes. I think the notes are, it says a three lot subdivision application on the SEQRA form. MRS. LAPHAM-And on top of the map it has them all outlined, you know, Lot One, Croswell Tuttle to Thomas F. and Julie L. MR. STONE-So what we're really being asked to do is say what is there is all right, however the numbers work out and however we have to phrase it in the motion. MR. THOMAS-That's about it. MR. O'LEARY-Okay, but there is specific requirements or requests with regard to Lot Two and with regard to Lot Three. Are there specific requirements with regard to Lot One, too? For example, I'm looking at the Staff Notes from the 19th, and on Lot Two, they have an acreage and a setback problem, and Lot Three they have an acreage problem, but nowhere is it mentioned. MR. THOMAS-Lot One has an acreage and a setback problem, and a lot width problem. MR. O'LEARY-Okay, but we've not enumerated that one on the notes, and it's probably on some other support document. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. MARTIN-This is the zoning map from this period. originally adopted on June 11th. It was MR. THOMAS-' 82. MR. MARTIN-All the lakeshore areas were LR-1A. Lockhart Loop is over in here, isn't it? - 6 - '-" -..-- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) MR. STONE-It's on 9L. MR. MARTIN-It's west of Bay Road, right? MR. STONE-West of Bay Road and east of Lake George, yes. MR. MARTIN-Here's the Subdivision Regulations, and then on the back are the individual district requirements, right on the back of the map. Lakeshore Residential is right here. MR. THOMAS-It looks like it was always three acres. MR. MARTIN-Did you say you have a plat with the Planning Board Chairman's signature on it? MR. THOMAS-Right here. MR. STONE-That one, there. MR. MARTIN-You must have gotten a variance, then. MR. RYAN-There may have been. It was my impression there wasn't, but I didn't handle that original file. MR. MARTIN-Was it under Mr. Tuttle's name at that time? MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Well, I'll see if I can find the old variance. MR. THOMAS-So, we will put this one on hold. MR. MARTIN-As long as it takes me to get over there and get back. Is it our understanding that these lots are already assessed individually, as far as tax perspective in the Town of Queensbury? MR. RYAN-Yes, they are. Excuse me. Mr. Tuttle wants to say something about the history of the property. Would that be acceptable? MR. THOMAS-Yes. CROSWELL TUTTLE MR. TUTTLE-I think there's a certain amount of misunderstanding and confusion here, and it's not that I ever intended to do any kind of a subdivision, and if I have your permission, I'd like to tell you just exactly what happened. MR. THOMAS-Go right ahead. MR. TUTTLE-Okay. Mrs. Tuttle and I, and she's passed away, in 1956 bought this property which you have a map of, just the way it is. There was one old house on there, which is still there. It was built in 1913, and one half of it, or a part of it was moved across the lake, in 1913, and it came from the Fort William Henry location. So that's what we acquired, along with 300 feet of lake frontage, in 1956. In 1972, I came to the Planning/Building Inspector downstairs and got a permit to build a year round home for myself, and what is that on the map, which one? MR. RYAN-I believe that would be Lot Three. MR. STONE-Lot Three. MR. TUTTLE-Lot Three, and I live there now. I built it, got my permit to build it, and I'm still living there. Now that property - 7 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) was pie shaped. As it came up from the lake, it branched out, and when you got up to the top of the hill where you had Lockhart Loop, the original property came with an old garage, which is still there, but there was a lot of room at the top, and I built a little chalet for my son Charlie, Charles Tuttle. Which is that one? MR. RYAN-Lot Two. MR. TUTTLE-Lot Two, and that was the extent. Now nothing happened about this property until 1984, when Mr. Boyce and I negotiated for his purchasing the Top of the World property. Mr. Boyce and his group of buyers wanted the lake front property included, and while I wasn't interested in selling it, in order to make the deal go through with Top of the World, I agreed to. The Town of Queensbury did not allow Mr. Boyce to buy the lake front property, which would be the 300 feet of lake front and the three houses that were there, and in order for them to do that, they had to get the survey, Mr. McCormack, to make a map of the property, and that's the property that you have right now. The house that I originally bought on the property and the other two that I built for myself and my son are still there, and certainly I don't know how anybody can consider it a subdivision. MR. STONE-Mr. Tuttle, when did the house on Lot One get built? MR. TUTTLE-Is that illY house? MR. STONE-No. You're on Three. MR. TUTTLE-The old one? MR. RYAN-There's Charlie's. This one right here. MR. TUTTLE-Where 1. live. MR. RYAN-No, you live right there. MR. TUTTLE-That got built in 1913, and part of it was moved across the lake, on the ice in the winter. MR. STONE-Yours was new when you bought it, built it, on Lot Three? MR. TUTTLE-Yes. I built it new, right from the ground up. MR. STONE-Yes, the one you were talking about, the one that's being divided was on Lot One? Okay. So that's the one that's been there a long time. MR. TUTTLE-And I'm the neighbor to the south of Mr. Ladd, and on the other side of me is the Burnett property, and nothing more is going to be built. There's no way to build anything more. There's nothing left. MR. STONE-You built your house on Lot Three, you said, in 19? MR. TUTTLE-'72 and '73, a couple of years. MR. STONE-Okay, but at that point in time, you had two houses on one lot? MR. TUTTLE-Yes, when my house got built, it made two houses. MR. STONE-And at that time it was one lot, the whole? MR. TUTTLE-Yes, it still is. Well, as far as I'm still the same piece of land it was to begin with. lot of drawings on it, and a lot of your drawings drawings and everything else, but it's still the concerned, it's Now it's got a and McCormack's same individual - 8 - '- ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) piece. MR. STONE-Which you want us to make it three here, or acknowledge that there's three pieces of property there? MR. TUTTLE-Yes, then a couple of years later I built a little chalet for Charlie Tuttle, which he now owns. As a matter of fact, the old house, the original house, has already been deeded to my daughter, and she's the owner of it, and the chalet at the top has already been deeded to my son Charlie. I don't own any of those anYmore. What's bringing this all up is that I'm not as young as I used to be, and have to face certain realities in the world. So I wanted to get rid of the house I'm in, and I'm deeding that to my son and daughter, together, and that's the whole picture. There's nothing more. MR. STONE-You're just running afoul of rules and regulations, that's all. MR. TUTTLE-I understand. I think I would like just to say, again, in case you missed it, is that when I built my house, I came down here, downstairs in this building, original building, and got a permit to do it. Then two or three years later, I came back and did the same thing and got another permit to do it. So the Town of Queensbury knew those houses were being built, and there was never any mention or any talk about a subdivision. We were just building three family houses. MR. STONE-But if you take one lot and make three lots out of it, it's a subdivision. MR. TUTTLE-Yes, it certainly is. There's been a lot of properties on Lake George that have had families build houses. MR. MARTIN-It's not going to be very much help, I don't think. It did have a variance approval back in February 21, 1985, which is most peculiar, given the fact that this subdivision was approved on March 22, 1984, and this isn't even for the configuration that we're looking at. It's to subdivide an eight acre parcel into two parcels of five and three acres. Now I do know, those in the old Subdivision Regulations, this was considered a minor subdivision as a subdivision of less than five lots, and as such, those did not need Planning Board approval if they did not require construction of a new road back in that era. So I suspect, obviously I was not here at the time. I suspect that's why that was signed, because we have no record of it actually going before the Planning Board, and it wouldn't have, as a minor subdivision. MR. THOMAS-There's a Planning Board signature on that map. MR. MARTIN-Well, the Chairman's signature, but there's still no record of this appearing before this whole Board, because up until 1988, those were considered minor, and they never went to the Board. MR. THOMAS-The Chairman just signed them off? MR. MARTIN-Apparently. You're seeing as much as I am. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-It never came before the ZBA, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Well, it still should have gone before the ZBA, especially if the zoning required a three acre lot size. I have no explanation why the Chairman of the Planning Board signed this. There's every indication that this was three acre zoning. If this didn't meet the lot area requirement at the time and it should have - 9 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) received a variance. The only thing, this one here apparently took an eight acre parcel and allowed it to be divided into, I don't know if this is the same area we're looking at. Here's Lockhart Loop Road. Did you, at some time, own eight acres total? MR. TUTTLE-No, that couldn't have been eight acres. MR. RYAN-At one point Mr. Tuttle owned about 1200 acres at Top of the World, which was originally going to be part of this project. The group that purchased Top of the World wanted to also purchase this land, but it's my understanding from Mr. Tuttle. MR. MARTIN-Yes. This is Lockhart Mountain Road. This isn't even the same area then. MR. RYAN-Right. MR. MARTIN-Okay. That's the only record we have of the 80's with the name "Tuttle" appearing on it. MR. THOMAS-Well, then, I guess we will proceed. MR. MARTIN-So I think you have to consider this request tonight as a totally clean, for the first time. MR. THOMAS-Well, would it have to go to the Planning Board, first, for subdivision? MR. MARTIN-No. You have to, we have this on the Planning Board meeting scheduled for Tuesday night, should the outcome of this be positive. If not, it will then be pulled off of that agenda, or if this is tabled. MR. THOMAS-All right. The public hearing is closed. Do you have anything else you want to add before I start polling the members of the Board? MR. RYAN-I don't believe there's anything further. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So what do you think, Bob? MR. KARPELES-I'm a little bit confused. If we're starting from scratch, then this looks like a tremendous variance, to me, or a tremendous amount of relief being requested. MR. THOMAS-But it did receive Planning Board approval. It's signed by the Planning Board Chairman back in 1984. MR. KARPELES-Well, I thought Jim just said we started from scratch here? MR. MARTIN-All I'm saying is I have no indication that a variance was given to create lots of a substandard size like that. MR. STONE-You don't have that map in your file? MR. MARTIN-That's a completely different location. It's Lockhart Mountain Road. MR. STONE-But this map, Mr. Ryan, you gave us this map, '84? MR. RYAN-Yes, I did. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MARTIN-If you'll notice, in the eighty, see, the subdivision regulations were updated in '82, and ran through '88. During that period, they had a clause in there, or a section for minor - 10 - "--- '-.-' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) subdivisions, and those were subdivisions of four lots or less did not require Planning Board approval. They could be filed at the County directly, if they didn't involve the construction of a new road. MR. THOMAS-Yes, but then why is Roberts' signature on there as, how did he sign off on a subdivision of less than an acre per lot when it was still in an RR-3 zone back then, or WR-3 zone back then? MR. MARTIN-I went through our file index cards just now. Like I said, the only time Tuttle appears there is for that file that I just gave you. MR. THOMAS-The one up on Lockhart Mountain Road. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, the tax map number's different. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-This is 1.-1-23.1, and we're talking about 24.-1-2.1. MR. THOMAS-What do you think, Bob, yes, no, maybe? MR. KARPELES-Well, I gave tremendous amount of relief. what the other people feel. you my opinion. I think it's a I don't know. I'd like to listen to MR. THOMAS-Okay. Don? MR. O'LEARY-Well, I think that we have to assume, in the absence of anything to the contrary, that the existing development was approved in some manner, shape or form. We have the March 22, 1984 map. We do have indications that it was filed and approved by someone. If that is indeed the case, then the only thing we have to approve here tonight is the existing variances as a result of the change since the time has elapsed from '84 to the present, and under those conditions, even though it seems like a great deal of variance, I'm told by people who know, that it's consistent with the character of the area, and I would approve it. MR. THOMAS-Lou? MR. STONE-I'm basically of the same nature. The applicant tells us that he did get building permits for these houses on the lot, and it would have been three houses on one lot if this subdivision or this division of land had not taken place in at least somebodv's mind, in the Town government. As Don said, the character of the land, this is not going to change anything that's been there for at least 20 or 25 years. You built your house in 1972, I'm told. I would go along with the applicant. MR. THOMAS-Brian? MR. CUSTER-I'll go along with the applicant also. I believe the houses there, there's really no substantial change over the last 20 years and what's been existing. I concur with the gentleman. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I'm also in favor of the application. I don't think that there'd be any adverse effect on the neighborhood, being that the houses are already there and that it's usage is already there. I just don't see how it's going to change the character of the neighborhood any. I'm in favor. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? - 11 - --..-/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I tend to agree with the others, although at first I had thoughts about the possible setting of a precedent that might encourage others to try and do the same, maybe it would change the character of the neighborhood. It certainly would change the map, but after thinking it through, I don't think there's any other people that can say they have approval and permits in 1984. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Do you want to say anything else, Bob? MR. KARPELES-No. MR. THOMAS-I agree with the other Board members. All this is is just drawing some lines on a piece of paper for buildings that have been in existence between 1913 and 1974, '75, when the last one was built. The only thing that happened was the map was never filed, and if that map had been filed back when it was supposed to, we wouldn't be sitting here hearing this tonight. So, again, it was approved back in 1984 by the Planning Board Chairman, Richard Roberts and Mac Dean from the Building Department also approved it. So I don't see any problem with it. Does anyone have a motion? MR. STONE-I'll make a stab at it, but before we go, the Staff Notes appear to me to be incorrect. The applicant is talking about three lots, not the dividing an existing 1.4 into two. It's actually dividing 2.1 into three, and if we all agree that's what it is, that's the way I'll try to word the motion. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-1997 H. CROSWELL TUTTLE, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald O'Leary: On Lockhart Loop Road. The applicant is proposing to divide an existing 2.151 acres into three lots of approximately equal size, Lot One being 32,297 square feet, Lot Two being 29,939 square feet, and Lot Three being 31,454 square feet. The current property is presently zoned WR-3A, which allows one dwelling for three acres of land, and in actuality, there are currently one dwelling on each of the three proposed lots. The variance required involves, I believe, requires an average of 46 feet of relief in lot width for Lot One. Lot Two requires 65 feet of relief on average, and Lot Three requires 58 feet of relief on average. In addition, on Lot Two, the house on what I would call the east side, requires 15 feet of relief from the property line, and a house on Lot Three requires 15 feet of relief from the property line. The relief for Lot One is 2.74 acres, for Lot Two it is 2.69, and for Lot Three, 2.72. This variance acknowledges the fact that it appears that approval was given to this subdivision in 1984, and that the map was not filed in a timely fashion. The criterion for exhibiting an Area Variance, the benefit to the applicant. The relief would allow the applicant to subdivide property into three substandard lots. Feasible alternatives. It was considered that the applicant may have the ability to modify the lot line shown on the map, but with the relief that we're granting, it's just not necessary. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? There is considerable relief granted by, particularly in terms of lot size, and it is recognized that this relief keeps this property in tune with surrounding property, that it is not, will not have a hazardous effect on the property and surrounding pieces of property. It is recognized, also, by granting this variance, that the difficulty is self created, but this was created with what was considered to be the approval of the Town back in 1984, and nothing that has been done suggests that this land will ever be divided in any other way in the foreseeable future. - 12 - '- '--" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. TUTTLE-I wish to thank the Board members. MR. THOMAS-You're quite welcome. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-1997 TYPE II WR-1A CEA JOHN & JOAN LEFNER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE WEST SIDE OF BEAN ROAD, RED HOUSE OFF OF PILOT KNOB ROAD APPLICANTS PROPOSE TO CONSTRUCT A DECK AND GARAGE. THE DECK WILL NOT MEET THE REQUIRED SHORELINE AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR THE WR-1A ZONE. THE GARAGE WILL NOT MEET THE SIZE, HEIGHT AND SETBACKS FOR THE WR-1A ZONE. THE GARAGE WILL NOT MEET THE SIZE, HEIGHT AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SHORELINE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-66B,1,S,c AND THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-16, WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE ZONE. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP NO. 152-1-6 LOT SIZE: 0.55 ACRES SECTION 179-66B,1,5,c; 179- 16 JOHN LEFNER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 10-1997, John & Joann Lefner, Meeting Date: March 19, 1997 "APPLICANT: John & Joann Lefner PROJECT LOCATION: 44 Bean Road Proposed Project and Conformance wi th the Ordinance: The applicant is proposing to construct a deck attached to an existing home and a new freestanding garage. The deck will not meet the required shoreline and side yard setbacks. The garage will not meet the height, size, and setback requirements for the WR-1A zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a new deck and a garage on their property. 2. Feasible alternatives: Alternatives are limited for the proposed deck. The applicant may have the ability to locate the garage more to the west, reducing the amount of side setback relief being sought. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking 5 feet of shoreline setback relief and 1 foot of side setback relief for the proposed deck. The proposed garage requires 11 feet of side setback relief and 7.5 feet of height relief. The applicant proposes to divide the square footage of the garage building between a garage and a work shop. The applicant should indicate the square footage of the garage portion of the project in order to determine how much relief from the Zoning Code is necessary. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? No negative impacts are expected with this application for relief. Further comment may be provided at the public hearing. S. Is this difficulty self created? The location of existing buildings on this property make it difficult to build additions that would conform to Zoning setbacks. Staff Comments «Concerns: The proposed garage will be built with a wall to separate one of the bays as a work area. The area of the portion of the building to be used as a garage may be under the 900 square foot currently allowed. The applicant should indicate what the area of the garage is. It appears that the height of the new garage will not be any higher than the existing residence and will not decrease any views from properties behind this one. The proposed deck does not encroach on side setbacks any further than what exists. SEQR: Type II, no further action required. " - 13 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) MR. THOMAS -Okay. We don't have anything from Warren County, under the new rules and regulations. Mr. Lefner, would you like to speak concerning your application? MR. LEFNER-My wife and I and our family are going to be moving here full time in the spring of this coming '97, and it presently, as Mrs. Lapham mentioned, I have no cellar and no attic, which is typical for a camp. That's why I feel that there is a need for a garage and a place for storage, and in the front of my camp exists a situation where there's presently four sets of sliding glass doors, and if you look at the second page, you'll see the pictures that show the sliding glass doors literally lead off into nowhere. From what I've been told from the original owner, he was going to put on a deck at some time, but never did. So I do have an existing problem if someone does get the door open, they could literally go right off into mid air, and the existing set of stairs and walkway that go into the porch are in need of repair, and I'd like to be able to, at the same time, put in a new set of stairs, put in some type of deck so it'll give me an easy access through the existing sliding glass doors, and as far as the frontage goes, and I also want to mention Mr. Martin's Staff has been very helpful in this, because this is all new to me, as far as going through these variance processes and new to the area. If you look on the third page, which shows the plot plan and the indent and it says, "stone seawall", and there's an indent? When I talked to the Town and they came out to the camp and looked at it, that particular area is not the actual natural shoreline. At some point in time, years ago, somebody dug that in so that they could pull a boat up and have some place to tie up a boat, which could have been 30 years ago, and the point that I'm alluding to is if you do draw a straight line right across and go across where that little indent is, then I wouldn't need any relief from the setback, because that little indent was man made, and if that indent was not there, then I would not need a frontage setback at all. I would conform with the new regulations, which we did come and support in the fall, when the Town wanted the new Waterfront Residential regulations. MR. O'LEARY-The indent that says "tie only"? MR. LEFNER-Where it says 45 feet. MR. THOMAS-Right under the word "George". MR. LEFNER-Correct. MRS. LAPHAM-Between the "G" and the "E". MR. LEFNER-It says where the owner, this was cut out by previous owner 20 years ago. That's what my understanding is. It should be Page Three. MR. STONE-So that indent. What about the other indent? What is that other thing, on the other side? MR. O'LEARY-Where is says "tie only", to the left of that dotted line. MR. LEFNER-That is just some type of beach area that was put in years ago, and there's a poured concrete wall that goes around it. MR. STONE-But the lake comes all the way up to the, where does the sand end? MR. LEFNER-Do you see the last like wave? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. LEFNER-It goes right there. You see the little line that goes - 14 - ,"-c -..../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) across diagonally? Just below that. MR. STONE-So that's further away than this other? MR. LEFNER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LEFNER-Yes. The problem that I come into is, I wouldn't need the frontage setback if it wasn't for that man made cut in area. The other ones are obvious. As you come up to Lake George, you've got to work with what's there, and I know Mr. Stone went up and looked, and said that probably I wouldn't build what I have there today, but we bought what's there, and we have to work with what's existing, and it exists as, if you see the back part of the house, where it says, right now it's 4.6, four feet six inches from the side, and then the back of the house is six foot four, and then I'm proposing to keep the garage in line with that, so that the property, when it comes out to Bean Road, comes out wider, so it'll stay in line with the existing house. MR. THOMAS-Any questions for the applicant? MR. STONE-Well, the concern that I have is that I was not able to look at this, the front, because I didn't get a chance to get up there until today, and I didn't have my hip waders on to get through the snow and the frozen granular that we had there. So I really didn't get a chance to see what the front of the house looked like. MR. THOMAS-The picture's a pretty good rendition of it. MR. STONE-Okay. I'll accept that. MR. LEFNER-And also the location of the garage will butt up against my neighbor to the north, who has three existing structures that are there, as you see the two smaller garages and then one larger two story garage. MR. STONE-You did say that you have no storage, and yet you're proposing to take out a shed that obviously is for storage? MR. LEFNER-The Town advised that it would look Town if we removed something to gain something. the shed to keep my wood stored in it, but if it where that would be the deciding factor, I would favorable by the Actually, I keep came to the point remove that shed. MRS. LAPHAM-And the garage has three bays and one on the first level is going to be the workshop? MR. LEFNER-Correct. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Then why are we building this garage so high? MR. LEFNER-Just for storage. MRS. LAPHAM-It takes the place of an attic in your home? MR. LEFNER-Correct. MR. STONE-Do we have any data on the height of this? We don't have any elevation on this thing, do we? MR. LEFNER-The existing, I included. It's under the existing height of the house. It's not any higher. MR. O'LEARY-From the point of view of obstruction, there would be - 15 - '~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) none. MR. LEFNER-I think in this particular location, it less impacts any of my neighbors, because it does abut up against existing structures to the north, and as far as blockage of any view, my house is already there. If I put it on the south end, then I do feel, while that may be a better location for the garage, it is going to impact my neighbor's view. MR. THOMAS-How many square feet is the garage, and how many square feet is the workshop? MR. LEFNER-The garage is proposed at 24 by 40, the garage. MR. THOMAS-Well, what I'm trying to do, the whole building is 24 by 40. MR. LEFNER-Correct, but the upstairs would not be a full 24 by 40, because of the rafters. I think the total square footage, downstairs and up, is under 1500. MR. THOMAS-Well, what I'm looking for, see, the Ordinance says you can't have more than 900 square feet of garage. MR. LEFNER-Correct. MR. THOMAS-But you're using one of those bays as a workshop. So that doesn't count as garage, if I'm not mistaken. MR. MARTIN-That's correct. MR. LEFNER-Okay. MR. THOMAS-So I need to know how many square feet is garage and how many square feet is workshop. MR. LEFNER-It would be 24 by 26 would be the garage. MR. THOMAS-So that's 624, and, lets see, 24 by 40 is 960. So we're talking 336 would be for the workshop. MR. LEFNER-For the workshop. MRS. LAPHAM-So 24 by 40 divided by half would be the upstairs. MR. LEFNER-For the upstairs, correct. MR. THOMAS-I'm not worried about the upstairs, just getting the total square footprint of garage versus workshop. AnYmore questions for Mr. Lefner? MR. MARTIN-I have one, just to clarify, get it on the record. If you were at the hearings for the Waterfront Residential zone change last fall, and months preceding, the primary purpose behind the lowered height of the secondary structures were limiting this conversion of the second floor into living space and ultimately a dwelling unit. MR. LEFNER-Correct. MR. MARTIN-I think it should be stipulated that that would not be the case with this. MR. LEFNER-Absolutely. If my neighbor was proposing an apartment over his garage, I'd be here opposing it myself. MR. HAYES-Because the plans do say at the bottom, a three car garage with an unfinished apartment, and that was my question. - 16 - "- -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) MR. LEFNER-Correct. MR. HAYES-Okay. MR. LEFNER-But I would have absolutely no living space whatsoever. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant before I open the public hearing? MR. STONE-The only thing is, two trees will have to be taken down for the garage? MR. LEFNER-Unfortunately, yes. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. THOMAS-Anyone else? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Don, what do you think? MR. O'LEARY-I think that there shouldn't be any difficulty. I think that the relief requested is minimal. MR. THOMAS-Lou? MR. STONE-I agree. I would go along with Jim Martin's thought that we ought to stipulate in the motion that this upstairs area not be used for anything but storage, or however we wish to word it at the time. MR. THOMAS-All right. Brian? MR. CUSTER-Yes. I'm in support of it, too, as long as it not be used for any type of residence. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I also think the deck is a positive improvement. The neighbor next door has one, to the north that was also attractive. I agree, as long as the stipulation is there about the garage, I think it's a positive change, and I would be for it. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I have no problem at all with the deck. I wish the garage weren't quite so tall, and is there going to be any running water in the garage? MR. LEFNER-In the building permit, I would like to put a stationary tub, in the workshop, to wash out my hands or a paint brush, but as far as a flush toilet or anything like that, no. MRS. LAPHAM-The height still bothers me, but as long as there's going to be no living quarters upstairs, and no more running water of any type than just that one sink, I could probably be persuaded. MR. THOMAS-I have a question, what about that sink? Where/s your septic system? MR. LEFNER-It's marked on the plot plan to the south side. Do you see where it says "gravel parking"? - 17 - -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. LEFNER-I've got a 1,000, like a Fort Miller tank there. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Do you have a leach field? MR. LEFNER-Yes, I do, which runs kitty corner, lets see, east of the gravel parking. MR. THOMAS-Okay. So that sink that you want to put in the garage, where would you drain that into? MR. LEFNER-I would either have to put a line underground to the septic tank or somehow tie it into the house. MR. MARTIN-He's all right if he does it into the existing tank and leach system. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I don't have a problem with it, except the height of that garage. I think 23 feet seven inches is way too tall. Twelve on twelve pitch, and I think that can be lowered down to maybe eight on twelve, to lower that down. Can you do that? MR. LEFNER-What would give me head height in the upstairs? MR. THOMAS-Well, lets see, the first floor would be 10 feet, the first floor of the garage, it's probably about eight feet, eight and eight is sixteen. That would probably bring you down about four feet. MR. LEFNER-That would be considerable. I am keeping it under the existing house that's there. MR. THOMAS-Because you've got 26 feet wide. square feet, you know, of a footprint. You've got 1,040 MR. LEFNER-For the bottom. MR. THOMAS-Down at the bottom, yes. MR. LEFNER-I thought it was around 1500 square feet, 1,000 down and 500 up. MR. THOMAS-No one else on the Board has an objection, really, to the 23 and a half feet of height? MRS. LAPHAM - I do. MR. KARPELES-Bonnie does, and I think 1 do. MR. THOMAS-I'd like to see that brought down a little bit. We're supposed to give minimum variance, and a I think a 12 on 12 pitch roof, I think if you brought that down to an eight on twelve, or brought it down to 20 feet, so you'd be losing three feet, six inches. MR. LEFNER-So would that make the pitch of the roof in line with what is existing there now? MR. THOMAS-Of the house? MR. LEFNER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-The house has a 12 on 12 pitch now? MR. LEFNER-I'm sorry. I don't know, but the existing garage is the same width as the house. - 18 - ,~ -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) MR. THOMAS-It doesn't look like a twelve on twelve to me. MR. O'LEARY-No. MR. THOMAS-It looks more like maybe an eight, maybe a six. Well, what do you think, Bob, you're the engineer. MR. KARPELES-I can't tell by the picture. MR. STONE-If we had a ruler we might be able to tell. MR. THOMAS-You really can't tell by measuring the existing house off a picture. MRS. LAPHAM-That's true. MR. THOMAS-You don't have any reference, but I really don't think that house has got a 12 on 12 pitch on it. MR. LEFNER-Because my thought was to keep it in line with the existing roof line. MR. THOMAS-So this new building will be exactly the same height? MR. LEFNER-No. shorter. It'll be a few, I think a half a foot or a foot MR. THOMAS-Than the existing house? MR. LEFNER-Correct, because the existing house is a little over 24 feet high, from the ground level. MR. THOMAS-Is that the ground level, the same level where the garage is going to be? MR. LEFNER-Yes. MR. THOMAS-Or ground level where it sits now? MR. LEFNER-No. It's the same ground level. MR. THOMAS-Because of the snow there and the snow that was there yesterday, you really couldn't tell. MR. LEFNER-Right. MR. THOMAS-Well, I would go along with saying that it can't be any higher than the existing house. MR. LEFNER-That would be fine, because as the plans show now, it's not. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. KARPELES-This third bay, the workshop is going to have an overhead door on it like the garages? MR. LEFNER-Yes. MR. KARPELES-What would prevent somebody, in the future, from using that as a garage? MR. LEFNER-Other than my workshop tools. MR. KARPELES-I mean, when you sell the place, you're selling it as a three car garage, or you could sell it as a three car garage. MR. LEFNER-It never came up as a thought. - 19 - '~< (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) MR. KARPELES-Remember we had a problem with putting garage doors on? MR. THOMAS-Garage doors on workshops. MR. KARPELES-On workshops. MR. MARTIN-We have, in the past, over the years we've taken steps to a smaller width door. If you wanted to get a riding garden tractor in there you could get a wide enough door for that, but not something that would be wide enough to accommodate a third car. Otherwise, their point is well taken. You essentially might as well consider it relief, then, from the 900 square foot garage. MR. LEFNER-Yes, and again, if the decision is based on, tonight, if I change that existing door or change the configuration of the doors, I'd be happy to. I'd be happy to put the two garage doors on the east side, facing the road. MR. MARTIN-I think it's one of those things, you know, if it looks like an orange and smells like an orange, I mean, not unless you want to stipulate to a smaller diameter door that wouldn't accommodate a car or a truck. MR. KARPELES-Yes, I think it's up to you to tell us. MR. LEFNER-I would have no problem with that either. MR. THOMAS-Changing that door, and you said move the other two doors around to the end? MR. LEFNER-If that would be what the Board would decide, I have no problem with that either. MR. THOMAS-It's up to you, as to where you want to put the doors. MR. LEFNER-Right. MR. THOMAS-Because if you turn them around, if you want to throw those around on the end of the garage, and to me, you could take that garage and move it away from that property line a little farther, so there's less relief required. MR. KARPELES-Well, that's my next question. Why does it have to be so close to the property line? Why can't it be closer to the driveway? MR. THOMAS-Make it in line with the house. MR. LEFNER-It is. MR. THOMAS-Your drawing doesn't show it that way. Across the back side, but I'm going on the left side. See, that would bring it in a little closer, get rid of that nine feet and probably turn it into eleven or twelve. MR. STONE-If it were parallel to the front of the back addition there, and in line with it, then as Chris said, it turns it slightly, and gets it away from the line a little bit more. MR. LEFNER-That would be fine, too. MR. THOMAS-Is that addition next to the gravel parking lot, is that narrower in the back than it is in the front? MR. LEFNER-No, actually, it looks to be cockeyed. MR. THOMAS-Yes, it does. - 20 - '-' -../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) MR. STONE-It looks really to be cockeyed? MR. LEFNER-It sure does. MR. KARPELES-It does on this drawing. MR. LEFNER-It is. MR. KARPELES-It actually is. MRS. LAPHAM-When I was there, it looked like two houses joined together. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that's what X thought it was, two camps that were built together. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. Was that ever two houses that were put together? MR. LEFNER-I have no idea, but we love the view. MRS. LAPHAM-Yes, you do have a beautiful view there. MR. THOMAS-AnYmore questions for the applicant? If not, I'll ask for a motion. MR. O'LEARY-I'll try the motion. garage, obviously. I'll need some help with the MR. THOMAS-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-1997 JOHN & JOANN LEFNER, Introduced by Donald O'Leary who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: 44 Bean Road. The applicant is proposing to construct a deck attached to an existing home and a new freestanding garage. The deck will not meet the required shoreline and side yard setbacks. The garage will not meet the height, size, and setback requirements for the WR-1A zone. Applicant is seeking a five foot shoreline setback relief, and a one foot side setback relief for the proposed deck. The proposed garage requires an eight foot side setback relief and a seven and a half foot height relief. The applicant proposes to divide the square footage of the garage building between the garage and a workshop. The garage may be under the 900 square foot currently allowed and it is our understanding from the applicant at this meeting that two standard garage doors will be part and parcel of the garage and a smaller access door for yard maintenance tools. The garage be no higher than the existing house line. No plumbing other than one freestanding sink, no living quarters above the garage area. The benefit to the applicant, the relief would allow the applicant to build a new deck and garage on the property. Alternatives are limited for the proposed deck. The applicant may have the ability to locate the garage more to the west, which we have just accommodated now in our relief. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? I would say not substantial. Effects on the neighborhood or community? No negative impacts are expected with the application for relief. Further comment may be provided by public hearing, and none has been. Is this difficulty self-created? The location of the existing building on the property makes it difficult to build additions that would conform to the zoning setbacks in any other manner. As proposed by the drawing submitted by the applicant, a wall will separate the workshop from the garage areas. Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Thomas - 21 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) NOES: NONE MR. LEFNER-Well, thank you very much. MR. THOMAS-Just make those small changes that we ask, and I do believe this has to go before the Planning Board for site plan? MR. MARTIN-I think it does. MR. THOMAS-Because it's in a CEA. MR. LEFNER-When I talked to your office, after the zoning approved it, I'd be able to file for the building permits right then and there. MR. MARTIN-I think he's correct, yes. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Board? So he doesn't have to go before the Planning MR. MARTIN-No. He's ready for a building permit, but we would expect to see the changes on the building permit application that were asked for tonight. MR. THOMAS-Okay. All right. MR. LEFNER-Well, thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-1997 TYPE II CR-15 SUSSE CHALET INN OWNER: JOHN A. JOHNSON EXIT 18 OF 1-87 TO BIG BOOM ROAD (CARL R. CAFE ON CORNER) SOUTH ON BIG BOOM ROAD TO SUSSE CHALET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A COVERED VEHICLE PORTICO ATTACHED TO THE EXISTING HOTEL. THE ADDITION WOULD NOT MEET THE SETBACKS FOR THE CR-15 ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS FOR THE CR-15 ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-24, COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL 15. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 3/12/97 TAX MAP NO. 135-2-3.2 LOT SIZE: 2.02 ACRES SECTION 179- 24 CURTIS DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 11-1997, Susse Chalet, Meeting Date: March 19, 1997 "APPLICANT: Susse Chalet Inn PROJECT LOCATION: Big Boom Rd./Exit 18 of the Northway Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant proposes to construct a covered vehicle portico which will be attached to an existing building. The addition will not meet the required side yard setback of the CR-15 zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a new covered vehicle portico which will be attached to an existing building. The addition will not meet the required side yard setback of the CR-15 zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a new covered vehicle portico. 2. Feasible alternatives: Alternatives are limited due to the location of the main building on this property. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The applicant is seeking approximately 16 feet 11 inches of side setback relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? No negative impacts are expected with this application for relief. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The location of the hotel entrance limits where the vehicle portico can be built. Staff Comments & Concerns: The area of the site where this addition will be built currently serves as an entrance and driveway area of the hotel. Staff believes this construction will not have an adverse impact on surrounding - 22 - ,-' ---- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) properties while benefiting the applicant. further action required." . SEQR: Type II, no MRS. LAPHAM- "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th day of March 1997, the above application for an Area Variance to construct a covered vehicle portico attached to the existinq hotel. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-All right. Who's going to speak? MR. DYBAS-I'll speak. I'm Curtis Dybas. I'm from Richard Jones Associates. I think the application speaks for itself, and with the addition of a sketch I handed out prior to this evening, which we've prepared today to clarify our objective to the Board, I think I can answer questions. MR. CUSTER-Mr. Dybas, did Mr. Johnson own that property when the roof was renovated and all that, it's the same owner then? MR. JOHNSON MR. JOHNSON-It's the same family. MR. CUSTER-The same family. MR. JOHNSON-I bought the building in '92 and the renovation, I think, was in July of '91. MR. THOMAS-What's the chances of squeezing that 31 feet back, to something narrower? MR. DYBAS-The reason for the 31 is two fold, that I can think of. Number One, we have an existing driveway and a planter. We are putting the support piers down in the location of the existing planter and not coming on to the pavement for obviously collision reasons, and the width is, Number One, determined by the width of the pavement. Number Two, if you put two cars in there with doors open and people trying to get by, again, that's how we came up with the width. To squeeze it down more, we would have the piers in the paving and we would limit the accessibility of two cars under the canopy at the same time. MR. THOMAS-Okay. When I was by there yesterday, I noticed that the door to the office is on the east side of the building. MR. DYBAS-That is correct. MR. THOMAS-So, do you plan on relocating that door? MR. DYBAS-Yes. If you notice in the sketch, the door, the main entrance to the lobby, has been re-located to the north side. As you can tell from the plot plan submitted, the setback to Big Boom Road is about 46 feet, and one of the things we looked at initially, just off the top of our head, prior to obtaining the survey, was a possibility of going forward, and this would be really cutting back on setback, if they pull in and we decided to go to the north, and in doing so, we would switch the entrance around. MR. THOMAS-All right. Any other questions for the applicant? If not, I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. THOMAS-Any letters? - 23 - --- ----- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. There's a letter, Carl R's Cafe Restaurant and Bar, 365 Aviation Road, Queensbury, NY 12804, February 26, 1997, "To Whom It May Concern: We do support the Susse Chalet project. It is our understanding that the project will include potentially four new rooms and a canopy to be located on the North side of the property, which will abut our property line. We do not have a problem with the proximity of the canopy from our property line. If you have any questions, please call us. Sincerely, Joseph B. DeSantis, President, Aviation Road Development Corp. Carl R's Cafe" MR. THOMAS-Anything else? MRS. LAPHAM-No, I think that's it. Yes, that's it. MR. THOMAS-Joey DeSantis mentioned something about four rooms? MR. DYBAS-That is correct. MR. THOMAS-You're going to add four rooms on? MR. DYBAS-The four rooms would be remodeled internally within the existing structure. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. JOHNSON-Well, the two will be. What we had initially looked at was potentially putting rooms above the lobby, the existing lobby, and it just won't support it. So we terminated that. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. STONE-So it's an internal? MR. JOHNSON-Right. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? close the public hearing. If not, I'll PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-What do you think, Lou? MR. STONE-I think it's a very good project. I have absolutely no problem with it at all. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Brian? MR. CUSTER-I'll say no problems whatsoever with the proposed project. MR. THOMAS-Jaime? MR. HAYES-The applicant changed the location of the canopy away from Big Boom Road, which I think is a positive as well. I have no problem with it. MR. THOMAS-All right. Bob? MR. KARPELES-Yes. I think that they definitely need it, and I can't see where it's going to bother anyone. I'm in favor of it. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I agree with everybody else. I think it's a great idea. It should have been done when the place was first built. MR. THOMAS-Don? - 24 - -'- '---' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) MR. O'LEARY-No problem. MR. THOMAS-Okay. I don't have a problem with it either, neither does the adjoining neighbor, to whom it would most effect. So having said that, I'll ask for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-1997 SUSSE CHALET INN, Introduced by Bonnie Lapham who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Proposes to construct a covered vehicle portico which would be attached to an existing building. The addition will not meet the required side yard setback of the CR-15 zone. The criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267 Town Law, the benefit to the applicant would allow the applicant to build a new covered vehicle portico, which would facilitate people using the motel and checking in and so forth. The feasible alternatives are limited, due to the location of the main building on this property. The applicant is seeking approximately 16 feet 11 inches of side setback relief. There do not seem to be any negative impacts with this application for relief. There's been no public comment against. There's only been public comment for, by his nearest neighbor that this will impact the most. The difficulty is not self created because the location of the hotel entrance limits where the vehicle portico can be built. Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-There you go. MR. DYBAS - Thank you. MR. JOHNSON-Thank you. MR. THOMAS - You're welcome. Next on the agenda is a discussion item, which I don't think we really need to discuss. DISCUSSION ITEM: USE VARIANCE AND AREA VARIANCE FOR BEN ARONSON. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WILL DECIDE WHETHER APPLICATIONS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN PREVIOUSLY FILED APPLICATIONS (USE VARIANCE 14-1994 AND AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-1994). MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think we ought, for the benefit of the applicant to update the information we found. It appeared that initially when we looked at this earlier in the month that it looked like this was a somewhat similar application to what was previously heard by the Board. However, when we got into the details of that previous request, it was never acted upon. So, therefore, you are free to apply, and the application will be heard in April. There's no initial step there of having the Board view this as a different application. So, I think from your standpoint, that's qood news. So it will be heard in April. APPLICANT-Could I ask you when in April? I'm going on vacation. MR. MARTIN-The regularly scheduled April meetings are the third and fourth Wednesday of the month, which is the 16th and the 23rd. APPLICANT-Can we get it on the 16th? The 16th I'm here. The 23rd I won't be. - 25 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) MR. MARTIN-Yes. Okay. We'll make every effort, then, to have it heard on the 16th. Okay. MR. THOMAS-All right. AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-1997 TYPE II SFR-1A RICHARD WHITMORE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 6 ARBUTUS DRIVE APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A CARPORT ATTACHED TO AN EXISTING BUILDING. THE CARPORT HAS A CURRENT SETBACK OF ONE FOOT. THIS SETBACK DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIRED SETBACKS OF THE SFR-1A ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACKS LISTED IN SECTION 179-20, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ONE ACRE. TAX MAP NO. 119-1-19.2 LOT SIZE: 0.37 ACRES SECTION 179-20 RICHARD WHITMORE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 12-1997, Richard Whitmore, Meeting Date: March 19, 1997 "APPLICANT: Richard Whitmore PROJECT LOCATION: Arbutus Drive Proposed Project and Conformance wi th the Ordinance: The applicant has constructed a carport attached to an existing building. The carport, which has a setback of one foot, does not meet the side yard setbacks of the SFR-1A zone. Cri teria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow an existing carport to remain with a one foot side yard setback. 2. Feasible alternatives: Due to the fact that the carport is already built, and the limited space between the garage and the home at this location, alternatives are limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The applicant is seeking 19 feet of side setback relief. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? Using this area of the applicant's property as a carport may produce such negative impacts as noise and exhaust fumes that would effect the adjacent property owner. Additional comment may be provided at the public hearing. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The difficulty that exists is one of a property owner who wishes to allow a nonconforming setback for a carport. Staff Comments & Concerns: This use which currently violates side yard setbacks may produce some unwelcome impacts on the adjacent property owner. Public comment may be given at the public hearing which will help the ZBA better determine how much of an impact this use has. SEQR: Type II, no further action required. " MR. THOMAS-Okay. Mr. Whitmore, is there anything you'd like to add on to your application? MR. WHITMORE-Well, the reason for building it is just to organize the side of my property there. For years, it was a catch all. Everything was just thrown there. I have a third vehicle now, nowhere to store it. The last few years, I had to rent a garage. The expense that cost me, it's cheaper to build it than one year's rental. The only thing I store under there is my jeep. I don't drive it in the winter. It's more or less for storage. Before I built it, I spoke to all my surrounding neighbors, specifically the one located right next to me. He has a double lot, okay, and over the years, he's built a garage on that second lot. So it's not considered one parcel of property, okay. My property line to the edge of his garage is approximately 78 feet. So we're well away from the closest part of his house. His house from that is another 30 feet. So from the edge of my property to his house itself is almost 100 feet away from where that is. I don't know what else the Town is looking for. I know, years back, I built the garage 1981. At that time, the setback was within the Ordinance. So all I did was just put a small roof on the side of the garage. I showed you a sketch of what it looks like, and again, the only thing I store under there is the jeep I just use in the summer - 26 - '- -' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) time, as well as just some basic storage, lumber and what not, to get it out of the weather. It's all open. When I first went to the Town, originally I wasn't even going to get a building permit, to be honest with you, but the more people I talked to and the neighbors, we thought it would be the best idea is to go talk to the Town. So when I talked to George Hilton, I believe his name is, we had talked, and the idea was that, if I built it the length I did, and use just two, four by four supports, with a spandrel beam, there wouldn't be a problem building it right there on the line, as long as it was left open on all three sides. So I didn't see a problem. I paid the $16 for the permit, and then they called me and said, you can't do it now. You're too close to the line. You'd have to go through the Zoning Board of Appeals, and I didn't, and that's why I'm here now. MR. O'LEARY-And speaking of the line, could you or maybe Staff or somebody else help with the 19 feet? I'm looking at the last page, the grid, the diagram. Where do I look for the 19 feet? MR. STONE-Right here. The property line is right here. MR. O'LEARY-I see. The property line's not drawn. I thought this was the property line here? What's the one foot variance between the carport? What is this one foot? MR. WHITMORE-That's where it ends. There's that much between the. MR. O'LEARY-This is the property line? MR. WHITMORE-Right. MR. O'LEARY-It's only one foot from the property line. MR. WHITMORE-Yes. MR. STONE-So they're seeking 19 feet of relief. MR. O'LEARY-But this whole thing is only eiqht feet. MR. STONE-The garage is legal, Jim? MR. O'LEARY-I mean, he's only got eight feet to begin with. MR. WHITMORE-Right. It was built in 1981. It was in conformance then. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. O'LEARY-Okay. MRS. LAPHAM-I just want to make sure that I had even the right house today. Yours is the green one? MR. WHITMORE-Yes. MRS. LAPHAM-Okay. Because your mailbox appears to be in front of somebody else's house. I said, this can't be it because I didn't even see a garage, let alone a carport attached to it. MR. WHITMORE-And the carport is not visible from the road itself. To begin with, my garage sits back behind the house. This sits off to the left of it, another six feet behind the front of the garage. It's very hard to see. MRS. LAPHAM-You have like a little travel trailer in the front of it? MR. WHITMORE-Snowmobile trailer in the front of it. - 27 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) MRS. LAPHAM-Right. MR. WHITMORE-Right, and that's just on the side of the garage. What it was, I had stone all down through there and it was just basic storage, and what 1 want to do is cover it, just to protect things, and again, I hate to leave it out in the elements, not only for that, for safety reasons, too, somebody breaking in to different things, you leave things out. I keep everything locked, you know. MR. STONE-Your drawing says that it's open on three sides, and in fact it is not open on three sides. It is covered on three sides. They're all walls on every side. MR. WHITMORE-What I've got is a fence in the front and a fence in the back to stop the wind and the snow blowing through. MR. STONE-There is wall on the property line side. MR. WHITMORE-That wall is just a stockade fence that was there before, and all I did was screw it to the top. All there is is a screw in the top of each stockade section, being six foot tall, eight foot long. There's a screw in each end, just on the wall right there. MR. STONE-Okay, but it's now attached to the building. MR. WHITMORE-Just hanging there. question, yes. Correct. To answer your MR. STONE-I would agree. It is well hidden from the road, but it's certainly not from your neighbors. MR. WHITMORE-I have a letter, and I don't know. I attached it. MR. THOMAS-Yes, we'll read that in later. MR. WHITMORE-Okay, and that was my neighbor directly next to me. As I said, I went and spoke to all my neighbors. They had no problem at all. The two neighbors directly across the street I was in contact with over the weekend because the neighbors getting the letters, and they had no idea it was even there, the two directly across the street. They still don't. Because actually you cannot see it from the house. I have a tree line down that side of the property, directly in front of it, if you reviewed that, that runs down there, and in the spring you can't even see it, I mean, as the leaves come on, but again, I mean, in the winter you have to look at it, but it's neat, it's clean. It's a lot more organized. MR. THOMAS-Anymore questions for the applicant before I open the public hearing? I'll open the public hearing at this time. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ROBERT WHITMORE MR. WHITMORE-My name is Robert Whitmore. I live two houses north of Richard, the same side of the street, and seeing what it was before and seeing what it is now, it has certainly enhanced the neighborhood. If one would just look around some of the streets in that area to see about the enhancement of property, they would see a number of deficiencies. We have no trouble, my wife and I. We don't see it, as the neighbors don't see it, and I think that it's an asset to the property to have it look so nice, and including with that, I would even go so far as to say it's a beautification, rather than just having a spindle structure out there, which is not as beautiful, so to speak, okay, as a couple of supports holding a roof. You've seen these carports, and there's nothing beautiful - 28 - '--' -" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) about a carport, but the way this is enhanced, with the bushes and things like that, it adds a great deal to the aesthetics of the property. MR. THOMAS-Okay. Would anyone else like to speak, in favor of? Anyone wishing to speak opposed? Opposed? Do you want to read the correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-We have one letter from Linda M. Rooke, 10 Arbutus Drive, Queensbury, NY 12804, Town of Queensbury Building Dept., 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804, "Town of Queensbury Building Department: I am writing on behalf of my neighbor, Richard Whitmore. Recently he constructed a lean-to type of addition on his existing garage at 6 Arbutus Drive. The new structure is a vast improvement over the pre-existing eyesore. Accumulation of garden tools, etc., are now neat and organized, and we appreciate the erection and consider it to be an asset. Sincerely, Linda and David Rooke" MR. THOMAS-Is that all the correspondence? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. THOMAS-All right. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any further questions for the applicant? MRS. LAPHAM-Are the Rookes the people that live right next door to you, that would be most effected? MR. WHITMORE-Yes, ma'am. MR. STONE-That's the double lot? MR. WHITMORE-Yes. MR. STONE-Well, let me ask a question. Why does it have to be on that side of the garage, and not on the other side? Why couldn't it be on the other side? MR. WHITMORE-With the porch there and whatnot, the house, my garage door is directly even with the house. As you follow up the driveway right there, you follow the diagram, there's no room for anything behind there. MR. STONE-Not behind. The driveway, you lead directly into the garage, straight ahead. MR. WHITMORE-Right. MR. STONE-I'm talking about on the south side of the garage. MR. WHITMORE-You can't get in there. MR. O'LEARY-What is that little structure right there now? MR. WHITMORE-My septic tank is right there. The deck is right there. The driveway's right there and then you go into the house, and what I did is you drive along the side of the garage. It's easy access right there, and as someone spoke before, I just have my snowmobile trailer there in the front. I keep things there. MR. O'LEARY-What's the distance between the corner of the house and the corner of the garage right in that area, if you were to try to swing to the right? It doesn't look like there's a lot of room right there. - 29 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) MR. WHITMORE-I'm going to say about 10 foot. MR. THOMAS-Any other questions for the applicant? Hearing none, I'll start with Brian down there. What do you think? MR. CUSTER-Considering that the alternative is just to leave stuff loose and park, just leave it there and park, when I went and looked at it, I thought the appearance of the structure was substantially improved than the alternative to that, and the fact that the neighbor supports it wholeheartedly. It seems like there's no objection from the rest of the community. I'm in favor of allowing it to stand. MR. HAYES-When I visited the site, Mr. Whitmore clearly maintains his property in a very neat nice manner, and I think this would give him a method to continue well kept property, with the neighbor supporting it. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, I'm not thrilled with it because it's just a little too close, and a precedent could be set, but, on the other hand, it's already erected, and if his neighbor doesn't care, or doesn't seem to have any objection, then I suppose I won't either. MR. KARPELES-Well, when we get something li~e this, I try to just forget that it's already built and think, what would we do if it wasn't built? And I don't think we'd approve it. I think it's too close to the property line, and I think it is setting a bad precedent, and I think it's particularly setting a bad precedent to approve something because it is already built. MRS. LAPHAM-That's a good point. I'd have to say I do agree with that particular point. MR. O'LEARY-Well, I don't have a problem, other than right back to where I started from. I'm a little dense on this 19 feet. MR. THOMAS-That's the amount of relief required. MR. O'LEARY-Right, but I mean, that property line, it says he's one foot from the property line. MR. THOMAS-Yes, that's right. MR. O'LEARY-But from the property line to the existing garage is only eiqht feet. MR. THOMAS-Yes. That goes back to when he built the garage. MR. O'LEARY-So he's not asking for 19 feet, at this stage. MR. WHITMORE-I believe if the garage wasn't there, that's what would be required today, to build that garage. MR. THOMAS-The garage is there. MR. WHITMORE-It's been there since 1981. MR. O'LEARY-But he doesn't need a variance for that. MR. THOMAS-Not for the garage, no, because that exists. MR. WHITMORE-No. At the time, that's why I had to move it over that far, for the door to line up with, I couldn't move it over any farther and still have a two car garage. Originally, what I was qoinq to do is attach it to the house, and I couldn't go over that far. That's why it was moved back. - 30 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) MR. THOMAS-So, yes, no, maybe? MR. O'LEARY-No problem. MR. STONE-I do have a problem. I agree very much with Bob. If he can put it out of his mind that it's there, that's good. I can't. We have already, since I've been on this Board, in six months, made somebody take down something they have built that was in violation of the side setback. I'm very concerned when something is up, that it kind of indicates that the applicant is unwilling to conform to the requirements of the Town of Queensbury, and I'm very concerned. I agree that it is an asset to the property. I agree that it cannot be seen from the road, and I also hear that your neighbor doesn't object to it, but the amount of relief is significant to allow a piece of building one foot from the property line, it creates a very bad precedent, as far as I'm concerned, and I am not in favor of this variance. MR. THOMAS-I agree with Lou. I think that one foot from the property line is too close, and I also believe that maybe that addition could have gone on the back of the garage, where it would have been eiqht feet from the property line. There's a possibility, since, the neighbor owns a double lot, that maybe Mr. Whitmore could buy 19 feet, so that that building would be in conformance with the Ordinance, just a 19 by 200 foot piece of property from his neighbor. I don't know what it would cost. I have no idea, but that would bring it into conformance. Like Bob says, I'm not thrilled with coming in here for a variance after the fact. We have too many of those, and a lot of people plead ignorant, but I think Mr. Whitmore said, in this case, that he had gotten a building permit for a three sided open building and then closed it in, and I think that's what made it nonconforming. Is that right? MR. WHITMORE-The only reason it's closed in now is just that the fence is there for the winter, so the snow (lost words) . MR. MARTIN-I wasn't a party to the conversations, but I heard that you said you were told that it wouldn't need a variance if you were to build it? MR. WHITMORE-It wouldn't need one originally, and that's when I paid that $16, got my receipt for the building permit, and then they called me back and said, no, you can't do it now, because of the fact, you told me, if I put four posts up, I would need a variance, but if I went with two posts, and the spandrel beam, I wouldn't need it. I went to Moore's, talked to the architect over there. He told me the size I would need to support the structure. So the two by fours, because otherwise, you could have built it out of two by six's and put 12 beams up, okay. MR. MARTIN-When were you informed, though, that you would need a variance? Was it built yet at that point? MR. WHITMORE-Probably a week after that or so. MR. MARTIN-Was it built yet? MR. WHITMORE-No. It wasn't finished. there, and purchased. I had all the materials MR. MARTIN-Okay. That's how it happened. MR. THOMAS-Okay. MR. WHITMORE-I've got the receipt for the building permit and everything, and I talked to George, and that's the reason I went to Moore's and talked to the guy. I honestly could not understand - 31 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) why, if they said two poles, would be fine, but four would be out of the question. I'm saying, what's the difference, you know, but apparently that's the law. So that's why, in fact, I went over there, for the spandrel beam there, the land beam, with the tow, four by four posts, put the carriage bolts through it to support it, put two by six's with hangers right there. MR. STONE-Did I hear you say that you knew you needed a variance and you continued with the building? MR. WHITMORE-After I'd gotten it, he said you need a variance, after he told me I wouldn't. MR. STONE-After you the materials but before you put it up? MR. WHITMORE-I was already in the process of building it. MR. STONE-But you didn't stop? MR. WHITMORE-No. Well, the thing is, the metal roofing being up, it was all framed. You're talking 10 minutes to throw the roof on. Metal roofing goes up in a matter of minutes. MR. THOMAS-All right. Having said that, I'm looking for a motion, either to approve or deny. MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-1997 RICHARD WHITMORE, Introduced by Robert Karpeles who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: The applicant has constructed a carport attached to the existing building. The carport would require 19 feet of setback relief. The benefit to the applicant would be that the relief would allow an existing carport to remain, which has already been constructed, with a one foot side yard setback. It seems to be excessive relief. Various alternatives have been discussed as feasible alternatives. One would be to put the carport behind the garage. The other one was to put it on the side toward the house. Using this area of the applicant's property as a carport may produce negative impacts such as noise and exhaust fumes, upon the neighborhood or community, to the adjacent property, which would effect the adjacent property owner. Is this difficulty self- created? It would appear that this difficulty is self-created. The applicant was told that he needed a variance beforehand and he went ahead and constructed the carport anyway, and I would say that this difficulty is self-created. Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 1997, by the following vote: MR. THOMAS-Before we vote, a yes vote denies it. A no vote, doesn't deny it. Because if you get four noes on this, then we'll need a motion to approve. Okay. If we get four no votes, we'll need a motion to approve. If we get four yes votes, then the variance is denied. AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas NOES: Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Custer MR. THOMAS-That's four yeses and three noes. variance is denied. That means the ROBERT WHITMORE MR. WHITMORE-Can I address you? MR. THOMAS-Well, you can try. I might be able to answer it, or Mr. Martin. - 32 - '-..-.- -" (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) MR. WHITMORE-I just have a question. I understood that during these proceedings, you had mentioned the fact that on these close line variances, that the Board has seen enough of them and apparently has authorized that, and you don't want to set a precedent on this, but apparently you have set previous precedents on what you had just uttered a little while ago. MR. THOMAS-Each variance is taken on its own merit. Each case is different. Each case is separate. Each case is taken on its own merit. MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-Why, in fact, in the beginning, did they say, if I went with two, four by four posts and a spandrel beam like that, there wouldn't be a problem at all? MR. THOMAS-That I can't answer. MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-I went out and bought all this material, had it damn near built, finished, and then they said no. MR. THOMAS-That you would have to ask, who is it, George Hilton you were talking to? MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-You'd have to ask him. know the answer. I couldn't tell you. I don't MR. ROBERT WHITMORE-Are you saying that Mr. Hilton can give out bad information, or does give out bad information? To have a project set forth in progress, and then come before this Board and have him deny what he said? It's the same government, isn't it, the Town of Queensbury? MR. THOMAS-The Town of Queensbury, yes, it is. MR. ROBERT WHITMORE-Apparently somebody's not in synch. MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-Let me ask you something. I could build an aluminum pole, use almost, I've seen these built, okay. You could almost put like a tent up there, put an aluminum frame with a tarp over the top of that, and it would look like hell, and there's not a thing you could do about it, because it's not attached to the garage. It would be a freestanding tent. MR. THOMAS-I think we threw one of those out on Dr. Farhart on Rockhurst. MRS. LAPHAM-We did. It was already built. MR. THOMAS-And it was already there, and he had to take it down. MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-No. could put a tent. I'm just saying an aluminum tent, you MR. THOMAS-That's what it was MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-Are you saying you can't put a tent up in your yard? MR. THOMAS-That's not a tent. yard. You could put a tent up in your MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-A tarp, a covering. MR. THOMAS-Well, if it's some sort of structure. MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-Let me ask you something there. If I were to - 33 - ~, --'"' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) buy a tractor trailer, trailer, I could park it on the side of my garage, because that's removable, right? And I could use that for storage because that's not built. That's something you could roll in and out of there. MR. THOMAS-That I don't know. MR. MARTIN-He's right. It's a movable structure. MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-And you could put something like that that would look like hell, and here you won't give me a variance for that. MR. THOMAS-That's what the Board voted, four yes's, three noes. MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-What would be my next step, now? MR. MARTIN-Your next step is either to comply with the vote or to institute action against the Board through the court. MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-And how would we go about that? MR. MARTIN-You'd file a lawsuit, an Article 78, it's referred to. MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-Where would I get all that information? From your office? MR. MARTIN-No. I think at that point you need to retain an attorney to explore that. MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-So I can have all the minutes of this meeting? MR. MARTIN-Yes, sure. That's all public information. MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-This can't go back before the Zoning Board again? MR. MARTIN-Once they've ruled, that's it. I mean, that's the case. MR. ROBERT WHITMORE-Even if there's a modification to the structure? MR. MARTIN-If you do something to modify the plan, then they can reconsider a modification. MR. ROBERT WHITMORE-Based on what criteria? MR. MARTIN-It then becomes their judgement if they view it to be a substantial enough change to what was originally heard. Then they can consider that change. MR. ROBERT WHITMORE-But who produces this criteria to make the change? MR. MARTIN-To my knowledge, speaking from my point of view, there is no criteria. It's in their estimation, but again, you could consult. MR. ROBERT WHITMORE-Then you're flying by the seat of your pants? If there's no criteria to make a refiling, and be in compliance? MR. MARTIN-Well, the reason why that's the case is because they're the ones who have arrived at the decision, and they have to see if the change that's made is different enough from the original decision. MR. ROBERT WHITMORE-But the question you don't answer, in other - 34 - --- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) words, if I want to file for a re-hearing on the Zoning Board, on this particular structure, then that's fine. What do I have to do to that structure, to conform, to get it passed by the Zoning Board? That isn't too hard to answer, I wouldn't think. MR. STONE-Sir, I thought you were a neighbor. MR. ROBERT WHITMORE-I'm his father. MR. STONE-I understand that, sir, but you didn't say that. You claimed to be a neighbor, and now you're arguing for the applicant. I have a little concern about that. MR. ROBERT WHITMORE-I'm asking a question. I'm a neighbor of the neighborhood. I pay taxes, long time. Okay. It's kind of bad if I can't speak for my son. I don't know how many of you guys are parents, ladies and gentlemen, but put yourself in my position. MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-You guys were allover there and looked it over, and you all said it looked good, and the neighbors are fine with it. I just don't understand it. If I had done exactly what I thought I should have done before, and built it, nobody would have ever known the damn difference. True? MR. THOMAS-Somebody would have seen it. MR. STONE-Somebody would have seen it. We have a lot of people in the community, very interested in maintaining the standards established by the Town of Queensbury, and that's why we're here. MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-I mean, your standards, do you go around to some of these places and these shitholes around here though? MR. STONE-I see a lot of things that I'm not comfortable with. MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-You tell me that mine doesn't conform, but you go by all these other places, there's junk allover yards, cars and trash. MR. STONE-I only suggest, sir, that you bring that to the attention of the Building Department, and they will investigate it. MR. MARTIN-We'll investigate it. MR. STONE-That's what they do. MRS. LAPHAM-Couldn't the Building Department, George Hilton, isn't there something, could he go to George and say I want this carport and I'd like it to be in compliance. Can you help me draw up a plan that would be in compliance or substantially different than what I have now? MR. MARTIN-We'll help him in any way we can. There's several options. If he'd like to modify the existing plan and if that's still not in compliance, then you have the option of coming back here, or if you want to look at an idea of something that would be compliant. MR. 0' LEARY-I think the thing, Mr. Whitmore, to take into consideration is the fact that this Board, although I voted on your behalf, that this Board has voted against the variance that you specifically requested, which is only a one foot setback and a 19 foot overall relief for a carport which apparently now is three sided. Now, if you're asking what the criteria is for a re- application, the criteria is to eliminate the objection of those members of the Board to the mere one foot and the over 19 foot and the current structure. So were you to propose a plan that overcame those objections, then I think the Board would review that plan, - 35 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) and some people would find it, as they have tonight, egregious. Some would not, but we'd have to look at what you proposed on the second time around. MR. ROBERT WHITMORE-But we'd go back to Square One. We're going to make a re-submission to this group, you know, and I know you guys take a lot of time. MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-How about if I brought everyone of my neighbors in here, like 25 different people that live in the neighborhood, and all supported the project? MR. STONE-Well, first of all, each one of us is accessible to the public. Our phones are available. You can call. You can talk to each one of us indi vidually about what we might be comfortable with, on a re-design. I mean, we're available. MR. ROBERT WHITMORE-Then why can't you just divulge that now, on a re-design? MR. STONE-I don't know what it would be, sir, until I hear it. MR. MARTIN-It's not their role to design it. MR. ROBERT WHITMORE-Well, who's responsibility? MR. MARTIN-It's yours as the owner and the applicant to suggest what the proj ect would be. They react to that. They're not architects. They're not engineers. They're not designers. They're reacting to a proposal that you would make, as to whether, if you shave a foot off of this, two feet or three feet, you know, they would look at that, and if they, in their minds, felt that that's enough to reconsider this and potentially even change their vote, only they know that, as individuals. MR. ROBERT WHITMORE-I must be thick. I don't understand. What you're saying is that if you come for re-submission to this Board, sir, with a new proposal of a carport with structural means, what would I be comfortable coming in with? Another, shy a foot back? MR. STONE-I don't think anyone's going to answer that. Obviously, three people tonight thought that your variance should be granted. The other four of us were concerned primarily by the one foot between the property line, and we were also concerned by the fact, at least I was, by the fact that it was already built. I can't tell you, obviously, three people aren't going to change their vote no if you come in with something asking for less relief, something less than the 19 that the, technically calls for. Frankly, right now I don't know what I would agree to, but I know that I'm not going to agree to one. It might be two, three, four or five. I don't know until I see the whole application. MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-Let me ask you this. How long have I got to do this? MR. STONE-Forever. MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-I could just keep putting, appeal, appeal, and leave it up? Did I just hear you right? I could keep it up forever? MR. STONE-No. I can't speak for enforcement. That's not our job. MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-How long have I got? MR. MARTIN-If you give indication you're actively progressing on a new design or an alternative plan, we're not looking to beat you over the head with this. - 36 - '--~ --~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-It's going to cost me $50 every time I come back here. MR. MARTIN-The $50 pays for the advertising costs, basically, and the cost to send out the 500 foot notice. It's not a profit making proposition, I can assure you. MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-When you say 500 feet, is it 500 linear feet to the next neighbor? MR. MARTIN-No, it's 500 feet from your property boundary, 500 linear feet out, as far as that extends. MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-Why would a neighbor, 1,000, maybe 2,000 feet away get a letter? MR. MARTIN-The only thing I can think of is he must have property within the 500 feet. If he does not, I can share with you, it's also public record, our mailing list that goes out. That's in the file. MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-He had no clue. He called me, wanted to know why he would ever be involved in something like this. MR. MARTIN - I can tell you, that's a clerical function. The secretaries down in the office calculate out that 500 feet. MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-So I can let this go a year or so and just keep working on this? MR. MARTIN-I'm trying to be reasonable. I mean, a year, we're not going to allow that to happen, but if we see a constant, steady progress at trying to resolve this, then we'll work with you on the enforcement end, but I think a year is obviously too far to go. That's not fair to the people who do comply. MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-Okay. What is the time limit? MR. MARTIN-If you want to take 30 days to work out, you know, a new plan, and we see progress in that time, we're not, as an enforcement staff, going to, our idea is to get compliance. We're not looking to cost you undue expense or fines or anything like that. MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-This costs me time and money. MR. MARTIN-I understand that, and I apologize for what has happened, but working in the public sector, as soon as you get into one of these jobs, people expect perfection. All I can tell you is we're human beings in these positions, and mistakes are made. MR. RICHARD WHITMORE-We'll see what happens. MR. ROBERT WHITMORE-Thank you. USE VARIANCE NO. 13-1997 TYPE SASCHA A. MEHALICK OWNER: JACK CRANNELL, TRUST BETTY EGGLESTON 7 RICHARDSON STREET, OFF OF CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT CURRENTLY OPERATES A USED CAR SALES BUSINESS ON PROPERTY ZONED CR-15. THE OPERATION OF THIS BUSINESS IS NOT ALLOWED IN THE CR-15 ZONE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE USES ALLOWED IN SECTION 179-24, COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL 15. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/12/97 TAX MAP NO. 130-3-44 LOT SIZE: 0.37 ACRES SECTION 179-24 JEFFREY CANALE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT - 37 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 13-1997, Sascha Mehalick, Meeting Date: March 19, 1997 "APPLICANT: Sascha Mehalick PROJECT LOCATION: 7 Richardson Street PROPOSED PROJECT AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE: The applicant is seeking to allow a used car sales business on property zoned CR-15. The operation of a used car business is not allowed within this zoning district. The applicant is seeking relief from the allowed uses in the CR-15 zone. REVIEW CRITERIA, BASED ON SECTION 267-b OF TOWN LAW: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF THE LAND IS USED AS ZONED? The Board should consider whether or not adequate evidence has been provided, including financial evidence, which proves that this property cannot be used for any of the listed uses in the CR-15 zone. 2. IS THE ALLEGED HARDSHIP RELATING TO THIS PROPERTY UNIQUE, OR DOES IT ALSO APPLY TO A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE DISTRICT OR NEIGHBORHOOD? Although there are other businesses in the area, there appear to be some homes within the immediate area. It appears that conditions at this location apply to a substantial portion of this neighborhood. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? The operation of a used car sales business may have some negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Comment from surrounding neighbors may be provided which will discuss potential impacts. 4. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP PROVEN BY THE APPLICANT AND AT THE SAME TIME PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY? The ZBA should determine if this property can be used for one or more of the allowed uses in the CR-15 district. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: As is the case with all Use Variance applications, the applicant is required to meet all criteria in order to be approved. The ZBA should determine if all these criteria have been met before taking final action on this application. SEQR: Type Unlisted, short EAF attached" MRS. LAPHAM- "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th day of March 1997, the above application for a Use Variance to continue to operate a used car sales business on property zoned CR-15. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: No County Impact" Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. THOMAS-All right. Mr. Mehalick or Mr. Canale, whichever. MR. CANALE-Mr. Chairman and Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board, I would just like to state my appearance for the record. Jeffrey Thomas Canale, Attorney at Law, and I am the agent for the applicant, and it is going to be the applicant who's going to present his request, and I'm going to be here to answer any questions that he may have, or any clarification he may request of me. MR. MEHALICK-I moved to the house about four years ago, and I started a sales business, car sales business, which it doesn't look like there's one there. It's very small. I only have a small sign because Motor Vehicle requires me to have one. The house doesn't look like it is a business. It looks more like a house with just a couple of cars in the driveway, and I knew that my area was zoned commercial so that is why I opened the business there. I didn't know that there was stipulations as to what type of business there could be, and the first time I heard anything about a variance was just a few weeks ago. I think it was January when John Goralski called me and told me about, and I got the application in when he told me about it. To explain the answers about reasonable return on the land, the questions I don't really understand as far as I understand them, you know, this is my only income. I don't have another job. My wife is a student, and this is how I support my family, and there's a lot of other businesses around in the area, as far as trucking companies and a lot of stuff. I don't think my business has any effect on anyone. - 38 - "--- --' (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) MR. CANALE-There is absolutely no possibility of a reasonable return, given the fact that the applicant is renting the property, and that the only other use that it could be used for, under the current allowed uses under Section 179-24 are basically things such as the single family dwelling or a duplex. He couldn't rent it because he doesn't own it. Accessory uses such as private garage, storage shed, swimming pool, outdoor athletic or court facilities, private greenhouse up to 300 square feet, a non-enclosed deck used for restaurant, club, tavern or bar purposes. As he's indicated, the only thing that he knows or is trained to do is to sell cars, and he's not a restauranteur. He's not a horticulturist or an athletic trainer. So, under the uses that are allowed, he could not receive any return whatsoever from the use of the land. I would also like to note that there are some Type II uses that would indicate that the relief that's being requested, as far as the use, is not substantial, given the fact that among the Type II uses include gasoline stations, with or without automobile repair facilities, hotels, motels, hospitals, office buildings day care centers, particularly I would point out the gas stations, of which there are several in the area, and so the use, I don't believe, is substantial, or the relief is not substantial, in that if you've been over in that neighborhood, which I'm sure you have, it's obvious that it is mixed residential and commercial, and if you look at the photographs that are attached to the application, you can see that basically what he's talking about is storing no more than seven cars on his driveway, with a little sign to the office. The most relief we would be requesting is a Use Variance for seven cars. That's the maximum that the applicant has had on the property. Is that correct? MR. MEHALICK-Yes, that's as much room as I have. I can't fit any more. MR. CANALE-So, we're not asking for a huge lot sales, used car lot. We're asking for just to use the driveway for no more than seven cars to conduct his used car sales business, and I would just like to stress one more time that there is absolutely no reasonable return possible to the applicant on the property if he I s not granted this minimal Use Variance. Thank you. MR. O'LEARY-Before we get started, Mr. Chairman, a question to either a member of the Board or for Staff. What is the impact of a renter asking for a Use Variance as opposed to an owner, especially as it impacts on the reasonable return issue? MR. MARTIN-I think the reasonable return issue falls to the owner of the property, and I would have a question as to what is the rent being paid? Is the rent being paid reflective of, you say this is your dwelling as well as your location of business. Is the rent reflective of just a dwelling or is it reflective of a dwelling and a commercial business? I think we need to see some evidence of what the owner of the property has been getting on a return basis. What was it bought for? What is the value? Is he getting sufficient return from the rent being paid by this gentleman? I don't know. MR. O'LEARY-But he's not here making a claim one way or the other. MR. MARTIN-Who is the owner of the property? MR. CANALE-The owner is here. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Maybe those things can be divulged and progress can be made. MR. CANALE-Okay. Thank you. MR. STONE-Jim, a second question. I was talking to Mr. Mehalick - 39 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) the other day and going through my Code book. I couldn't find a definition for automobile sales, under any words that I thought about, like motor vehicles or automobile or used cars. I'm sure it/s in there, but I couldn't find it. MR. MARTIN-I think it's buried in just the automotive section. It says any use pertaining to motor vehicles, is how that starts. It's on Page 17912. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. MARTIN-And again, because I've looked in the past before, and you won't find it. MR. STONE-Okay. That's the trouble I was having the other day. MR. MARTIN-But I think it's basically any use relating to automotive. MR. STONE-But it says, may be used to describe an auto body, automobile service station, and so forth. I felt a little embarrassed, if you will, in front of Sascha the other day, saying, it's in here, but I can't find it. Thank you for showing me it's not in here. MR. MARTIN-You ought to try being the Zoning Administrator some time. MR. KARPELES-I've got a question along the same line. definition for Home Occupation, I can't find it. Their MR. MARTIN-That's there. It's under Home Occupation. It's on Page 17924, at the bottom. MR. KARPELES-Okay. Pardon me. MR. MARTIN-And I think there/s a number of things that would kick this out of that definition, the fact that the sales occur on a regular basis and that there is a sign present, and there is stock and goods sold, or traded on the site. Those are all contributing factors that kick it out of a Home Occupation. I mean, there may be a number of factors that may be considered to demonstrate that the property wouldn't yield a reasonable return as zoned, but I think that's got to be demonstrated, as you know, with competent financial evidence. MR. THOMAS-Dollars and cents on paper. MR. MARTIN-And I think in this case, it's on behalf of the owner of the property. MR. STONE-That's a question that I had the other day, that we were discussing when I visited the site. MR. MEHALICK-Well, as far as that, the only thing I can show is the sales tax that I collected, and based on that, I've collected $17,000 of State sales tax, and I've had a gross sale of $250,000 in the last three years. I don't know what. MR. MARTIN-This is always a very difficult issue to understand, and it's never easy to convey, but I'll cite an example, and this is totally hypothetical. Say the owner of the property bought this property back in 1985, and he or she bought it for $80,000, and they have a certain amount of mortgage and taxes and liability on it and so on, but for whatever reason, this property is producing X number of dollars in rent paid by you. That's the one category of return. Now, is it possible to put an allowed use in there, say a retail business or a veterinary clinic? I don't know, and what - 40 - '---' ~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) would that yield for a return? And if that is not a re~sonab~e return, and that's the term used in the law, then the var1ance 1S granted, but if it can be demonstrated that anyone of the allowed uses would yield a reasonable return to the owner, then the variance is denied. MR. CUSTER-Jim, I'm confused. I'm not looking to split hairs here, but I think the wrong person's sitting at the table. It should be the owner of the property. MR. O'LEARY-Yes. He should be joined by the owner. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CUSTER-I'm not looking to make him re-apply, but I think the wrong person has applied for the variance. MR. CANALE-Well, if I could point out, the variance application indicates applicant, and there's a space for applicant. Then it has a separate space for property owner, and it does not indicate anywhere that the applicant must be the property owner. It also, there's also another form that's part of the application, authorization and official record of meeting statement, where it delineates between the applicant's agent form and the owner's agent form, and requires the owner's signature as well as the applicant's. So that would seem to imply that it's not, or that at least there was contemplated that you would have an applicant who would not necessarily be the owner, or why would you have. MR. MARTIN-Yes. You can be authorized to make the case on behalf of the owner. I mean, that's not a problem, but nonetheless, the case has to be made, and I think it has to be looked at from that viewpoint. MR. STONE-We could make the assumption that the property is rented, and the owner of the property is satisfied with the amount of rent it's getting, it's a reasonable rate of return for the property as zoned. That's an assumption we can make. The property is rented right now. What we're trying to say is, lets say if the owner of the property tried to do something else with it and was having trouble renting it as either a residence or one of these Type II uses, then we could consider a Use Variance, armed with competent financial information. It gets very complicated when the property is producing income, and we have a renter who wants to do a nonconforming use. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think it's fine that it's producing income under the use that it's proposed. What has to be proven is that one of the uses in the Type II list cannot produce a reasonable return, and that's why he has no other alternative but to rent it to this gentleman who needs to conduct a llQg conforming use. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, we don't know, if the worst happened and the variance is denied, and Sascha leaves, we don't know that it can't be re-rented at a reasonable return to another household. MR. MARTIN-Conforming use. That's the demonstration that you should be looking for, that it, in fact, cannot. It's not an easy argument to make, and it's a complicated argument to make. MR. CANALE-Well, I guess I have a question, then, as to why would, and I would need some time to look at the Code, but I mean, it begs the question, when you look at the application, you have a space for the applicant's name and address, telephone and fax number, the applicant's agent, and the property owner. Now, it also has an authorization form which has two sections, one which has to be filled out by the applicant's designating the agent, and one that has to be filled out by the owner. Now, if only the applicants - 41 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) could be owners, then you would not need to make any distinction in the forms between an applicant an owner. It would just simply require that the owner of the property designate his agent, and that the owner of the property be listed, rather than the owner and the applicant. MR. STONE-We recently had a case, very similar to this thing. We had a piece of property who's owner had tried to rent the property for, what did we finally agree, 13 or 14 months or 19 months with nobody would rent the property for the uses for which it was zoned. A potential renter appeared before us seeking a Use Variance, and we used the data provided by the owner of the property to justify a Use Variance for this future renter. So we have, we've addressed this. MR. MARTIN-There's many instances where, like a contract vendee, or a property can be under contract. The person who holds the contract can be the applicant, and Mr. Mehalick, in this case, can be the applicant, and I don't think that's the issue. It's just that you have to begin to get into the finances of the property. MR. CANALE-Right, and I think that, I'm sorry. MR. O'LEARY-What I wanted to say is you're perfectly right. You're interpretation of the forms and the applications and how they're filled out are perfectly accurate. It's just that in order for us to grant the Use Variance, one of the criteria is, can not a reasonable return by the owner be obtained under the existing uses permitted in the area, and either he has to make that case to us, because he's the only one who knows, or he has a representative who will make that case to us based on their consultation. So what we' re saying is, the owner of the property, either through a representative or directly, is going to have to say to us, unless I have a variance that will permit this kind of an operation, I really can't get a satisfactory return on the property, because until somebody makes that case to us, we're going to assume that he can. MR. CANALE-Okay. Now, I would say this, that I agree with everything that you've just said, except when you said that it is the owner's burden of showing that he cannot get a reasonable return, when specifically the statute states, and I'm quoting, "the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return", okay, and if an applicant doesn't have to necessarily be the owner, and the Code requires that the applicant show that he cannot realize a reasonable return, then the financial analysis or the focus should necessarily be on the applicant, and that makes sense, and I'll tell you why. If you lease a piece of property, as an owner, okay, you're giving up possessory rights to that property, legal possessory rights. You are bestowing upon the tenant a lease hold estate, which grants them rights to use the property. All right, and if their use of the property doesn't conform to the local zoning requirements, then it is the person who has the legal right to use the property's obligation to get a variance for that use, not necessarily the owner's. MR. O'LEARY-Even if that were true, and I disagree that it is, but even if that were true, then we would have to have some evidence here that the permitted uses of the property have been by your applicant, have been by him tried in the area for considerable time to either sublet, in your scenario, for something that is permitted within the variance in order to get a reasonable return on the property. So he can then, under your scenario, he can then submit to us the efforts that have been made to do something other than what he's doing that is already permitted within the property. MR. STONE-And again, going further with that, this is a commercial residential area. This is a residential home. Mr. Mehalick is - 42 - '---' -- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) using it for a home. That, in itself, is sufficient ~eturn. For the rent that he is paying, he is getting a place to l~ve. We can assume without other evidence, that he is getting benefit. He is getting return on his rent, and what the return is is a place to live. MR. O'LEARY-And we can assume that the owner of the property is satisfied with the arrangement because he's renting it to him. MRS. LAPHAM-Well, there are also other things, when you go down, I mean, I don't want you to just jump way out ahead, but the thing that comes to me, is the hardship self-created. In the case of re- locating a business there as a tenant and not an owner, it's self- created because I have to assume that you could move, and put your business somewhere else where it would be allowed. MR. STONE-And the other thing that we always have to make sure people are aware of, there are four criteria for a Use Variance. Every one must be satisfied, not one. An Area Variance, we can use our collective judgement, our wisdom, as long as we're not arbitrary and capricious, and we can look at the thing and corne to an integrated answer, if you will. MR. MARTIN-The other thing I want to emphasize is the fact that this is not a matter of a local, Town Code. This is New York State law. It's applicable in every community in New York State. MR. MEHALICK-May I just go back to one thing about the variance application? If the owner was supposed to put the application in, why did John Goralski call me and tell me to put an application in? Why didn't he call the owner? MR. MARTIN-No. I think the attorney has made a good argument here, and I would defer, I can think of a reason to table this, until you have Mark here, you know, you're Counsel. I think Mr. Canale makes a good point, and that's worth having that considered by your attorney. MR. CANALE-I would request that the application be tabled so that we can produce the financial documentation and evidence that Mr. O'Leary insinuated to. MR. STONE-That's what I kind of indicated to Mr. Mehalick the other day, that, be prepared for what he's getting. I mean, we're not being arbitrary. As Jim says, it is the State law under which we must operate. MR. CANALE-I understand, but I just want, I think we did settle one issue, though. MR. MARTIN-I think your point's well taken. I mean, that's a point, if you'd like, I can have Mark or one of the attorneys here next time and he can speak to that. I think he makes a good point. MR. THOMAS-Before the next time, if they can have something, they can come up with something, so we don't have to sit here and argue it out again. MR. O'LEARY-Sure. Right. It would be moot if they. MR. THOMAS-Have something written, or have one of them here and explain it, yes, no or maybe. MR. CANALE-And if there's an opinion letter, have it copied to me. MR. MARTIN-Well, it might be just as useful, I mean, you know, you can talk to Mark Schachner directly, and make sure this is confirmed, and we can be involved. Then I can convey back to you. - 43 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) We'll also make sure that you have something in writing, in terms of the financial evidence. MR. CANALE-I think Mark would concur on that. MR. MARTIN-But I get very nervous about Staff dealing with this too much directly. I think it's useful and important to have the Board involved in these discussions. That's why it's here. MR. O'LEARY-I think that if it's tabled, and you re-apply, which I presume that's the path you'll take, that it becomes moot in any event, whether or not, if you're going to handle the question of, cannot a reasonable return be made, other than through the variance, to allow this opera t ion, whether you're making that directly because you believe you can, as the applicant, even though you're the renter or whether you're making it as an agent for the owner, or whether the owner is making it directly for himself. It's moot as long as it's made by somebody. Somebody is going to have to bring forward the competent financial information to say, if we don't go this route, we can't get a reasonable return on the property. MR. CANALE-I understand, but I want to make sure that Mark Schachner and I agree that, who's financial situation should be the focus, so that we're not, so that I don't have to present evidence. MR. MARTIN-I'll tell you what, if you can give me a couple of days, and maybe, Chris, you'd like to be a party to this, as Chairman or something, we can both go and meet with Mark, explain what happened, so he doesn't get his cold with your call. Give us a couple of days to meet with him, say by early next week you place a call to him, and we can get this started for you. MR. CANALE-All right. MR. CUSTER-I don't want to belabor this. I think what we're all missing here is what Bonnie brought up. Ultimately, though, his hardship was created by him renting from an area that's not zoned for this type of business. I don't think we're ever going to get beyond the fact that this hardship is self-created. He could have rented from an area that is zoned properly for this right now, and if this, if I understand the law, he has to meet all of these for us to grant this. I don't know how we can ever vote. I know ~ can't, and we're going to argue that point. MR. KARPELES-Is that one of the criteria for a Use Variance? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. MR. CUSTER-I think Bonnie hit that nail right on the head. going to be very difficult to prove that. It's MRS. LAPHAM-If he were the owner, then maybe I would consider this not self-created, if some sort of hardship befell the owner and he felt he had to do this. MR. CANALE-That's a point well taken. MR. O'LEARY-There could be a moratorium on the use. MR. CANALE-Well, you see, I think after speaking to Mark, if that is his, I mean, position, then probably what will happen is we will withdraw the application and re-submit it on behalf of the owner of the property. I mean, I'm not going to waste the Board's time. If I take a look at this and we cannot get over the hurdle of self created hardship, visa vie the tenant, then, but yet we have a reasonable case to make out to the Board, on behalf of the owner, then we will withdraw this application and re-submit an application - 44 - ',--- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) on behalf of the owner. MR. O'LEARY-It's been my limited experience that these are usually joint between the renter and the owner. MR. CANALE-Whatever. That way we might be able to, I mean, if we're going to address the issue of the financial return that we're going to have to get to the issue of whether the hardship is self- created, we might as well have the right person here. So, I would just ask that it be tabled, and if I'm going to withdraw Mr. Mehalick's application, I'll let the Board know in writing before the next meeting. MR. MARTIN-Yes, that's fine. MR. STONE-If we table it, you recognize that it's 62 days? MR. MARTIN-Yes, without further word from him and further action by this Board to extend that. MR. CANALE-This'll take 10 days. MR. MARTIN-In the mean time, I will take this up with Mark, and we'll try and get you involved, Chris. MR. THOMAS-Yes. Let me know when. MR. STONE-Do you want a motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. THOMAS-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE USE VARIANCE NO. 13-1997 SASCHA A. MEHALICK, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Bonnie Lapham: 7 Richardson Street, because of confusion over who has to show financial hardship, and also a concern about self-created hardship. Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-So it's tabled for up to 62 days. You're going to talk to Mark. I'm going to Mark. Jim's going to talk to Mark. MR. MARTIN-Just give us a couple of days to broach it with him. MR. CANALE-I will. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. THOMAS-All right. AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-1997 TYPE PC-1A CROSS REF. SPR 12-97 M & W FOODS, INC. DBA KFC OWNER: NORTHGATE ENTERPRISES CORNER OF AVIATION ROAD AND UPPER GLEN STREET, NORTHGATE SHOPPING CENTER ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESTAURANT. THE ADDITION WOULD NOT MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. RELIEF IS BEING REQUESTED FROM THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN SECTION 179-66C. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/12/97 TAX MAP NO. 98-4-3 LOT SIZE: 2.86 ACRES SECTION 179-66C JIM MATHIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT - 45 - (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 14-1997, M & W Foods, Inc., Meeting Date: March 19, 1997 "APPLICANT: M & W Foods, d/b/a Kentucky Fried Chicken PROJECT LOCATION: Northgate Shopping Center Proposed Project and Conformance with the Ordinance: The applicant proposes to construct an addition to the existing KFC restaurant on Route 9. The number of parking spaces in Northgate shopping center are not enough to satisfy the parking requirements needed for this addition. Criteria for considering an Area Variance, according to Chapter 267, Town Law. 1. Benefit to the applicant: Relief would allow the applicant to build a restaurant addition which will include new seating. 2. Feasible alternatives: Alternatives are limited which would provide a lesser amount of relief from the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance? The shopping center currently has 119 parking spaces where 171 spaces are required. The applicant proposes to have 117 spaces where 181 spaces will be required. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community? It is unclear whether or not allowing this variance will have any negative effect on parking at the shopping center. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The difficulty of having less parking spaces than what is required by code, is one which presently exists. Staff Comments & Concerns: The applicant proposes to construct a building addition which will result in 117 parking spaces for this shopping center. This would equal a parking ratio of 4 spaces per 1000 square feet of building area for this site. Staff feels this ratio is an acceptable one which would not present any parking difficulties at this location. SEQR: Type II, no further action required." MRS. LAPHAM- "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th day of March 1997, the above application for an Area Variance to construct an addition to an existinq restaurant. was reviewed and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: Approve Comments: This use is compatible with the surrounding uses." Tracey M. Clothier, Chairperson. MR. MARTIN-I'd like to emphasize, from a Staff point of view, we're not exactly enthralled with our parking ratios. A five per thousand requirement, I think we're coming to find, is essentially resulting in overbuilding of parking, and we're seeing increased examples of that around town, the Super K-Mart and the Mall and so on. A lot of these parking lots, during the majority of the year, a significant amount is just empty, and I think that's also the opinion of the Comprehensive Plan Committee that's looking at the updates to the Plan, and one of the things that's a suggestion, that the parking ratios be lowered, just as background information. I think we're going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of four per thousand. Institute of Traffic Engineers has ratios for parking, based on usage rates and the location of the retail center in the Country, the climate and all that are part of it. Basically, I think they're seeing ratios, in our area, of about 3.8 per thousand. MR. STONE-That's thousand square feet? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. THOMAS-All right. awfully familiar. MR. MATHIS-Yes. I was on your Board with you two months before you left Lake George. I'm still there. You/re not. I'm Chairman of the Planning Board. I left the Zoning Board after a couple of years. I stepped down, took a lower position. Before we start, Mr. Mathis, you look MR. THOMAS-Is there anything you'd like to add to your application? MR. MATHIS-We've been there since 1984, 13 years, and fortunately - 46 - '~ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) we've been quite successful, the business has grown. It's grown substantially since we added our all you can eat buffet, and even from Day One, when we took over from Wong's, who had it from Freshy' s, who had it from Carol's, the restroom situation was unacceptable, and, well, it was small. It was approvable, but small. Since we've been there in '84, the ADA requirements of size of restrooms came into effect. Ours are not in compliance, which has caused us a certain amount of grief with some of our customers, and in order to bring those to compliance, if we were just to expand our restrooms, I'd lose probably about 20 seats, in the diningroom that I'm, at meal time sometimes have people waiting for seats right now. So we decided to do two things at once, one to expand the restrooms and add a couple of seats, about 40 seats, to the diningroom, in order to solve a couple of problems. When I was talking to George, I realized, he told me that the entire shopping center, based on today's standards and your parking requirements, does not meet what is required. I mean, we don't have enough parking spaces for what's there. The only defense I guess I would have of that is that the experience I've had in the 13 years that we've been there, we have never had a problem with parking. It has never been an issue. In terms of the impact that my store has on the parking, about, and I've got the figures here, about an average of 30% of my business is drive through. It's cars that don't park. Another 20% are people who come in, buy their chicken, and walk right back out. They don't park for long. Our eat in customers are about 40% of our business, people that would stay and take a parking space for some time. The other issue is that our dinner business, which is at the time when the rest of the Plaza is pretty empty, from four o'clock on, until closing, we do over half of our business. Probably close to 60% of our business is done when the parking lot is not buried under a lot of pressure, and based on those things, I felt that the parking issue would be one that is, any questions you might have can be easily answered, I guess just by the experience that we've had. MR. STONE-I have a question, Jim. This is going back to the previous applicant. The parking lot is owned by somebody else, do we have to just say that and forget it? MR. MARTIN-I think in this case it's a much more direct issue. This is the action that this particular tenant. You own that, right? MR. MATHIS-No, we lease. MR. MARTIN-You lease. Okay. Well, this particular tenant then, like I was going to say, is causing the need for the variance. I think the issue clearly falls to him. MR. STONE-I don't have a problem with that. because we have just had it. I just wanted to, MR. MATHIS-But we, technically, wouldn't it be true, anything I would do that would require an expansion of my building would require a variance, because we're nonconforming right now. MR. MARTIN-Exactly. anything you do. You're increasing the nonconformity, with MR. MATHIS-Right. So no matter what you did, even if I did not take up parking space, like if I build out the back, I assume I'd have to come for a variance because of the fact I'm expanding the square footage of the building. MR. O'LEARY-Not if it's an Area Variance. MR. MARTIN-It's an Area Variance. It's a whole different criteria than what was looked at in the last application. It depends on a - 47 - "'---' --- (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) setback situation. We don't have a building coverage requirement in .Q1!1;: Code. MR. MATHIS-Well, how are the requirements for parking, how do you come up with the figure of the required spaces needed for the whole Plaza? MR. MARTIN-What he, in all likelihood did, I didn't look over his shoulder when he did it, but he probably has a figure for the entire Plaza, the building size, and the most conservative requirement is, or in a shopping center, I'm sorry. In a shopping center it's five spaces per thousand. This is considered a shopping center use. He took the gross floor area of the shopping center and divided it by that number, and that's when you come up with the parking spaces. MR. THOMAS-Okay. AnYmore questions? MR. MARTIN-I think his testimony tonight serves to reinforce what I said initially, that here's a parking lot that's operating at, or basically has been operating at about four per thousand, and has not wanted for parking, in his 13 years there. Any time I've ever been there. I go to the dry cleaner there all the time. I've gone there to Kentucky Fried Chicken on occasion. I've never had a problem parking. MR. MATHIS-See, that's the other issue. Most of the places there are, well, that's probably the place that gets the most traffic, even more than mine, is the dry cleaners, if you count the number of cars in, and they don't park. They usually park where they shouldn't park. MR. MARTIN-They park at the curb, like I do. MRS. LAPHAM-They just run in and get their stuff and leave. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think that's why we've got to get smarter with our parking requirements, like, and I think the other important point you make it, 50% of your business comes after a point at which most of the other establishments in the center are closed. I mean, you know, that's less pavement, and we're maximizing the use of the parking area. MR. MATHIS-And the other issue which I didn't bring up is that there would not be a chance of another restaurant that would go in there, because another restaurant, say Red Lobster won't go over there. There'd be a problem, but in my lease, no food place can go in without my approval, even the pizza place that went in the corner, they came to me first, or the landlord came to me first, and I said, I'm not going to stop him, because he was having a hard time renting space, and he and I had, he's dead now, but he and I had a good rapport, and we worked together. MR. THOMAS-Any more questions before I open the public hearing? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. THOMAS-Any more questions for the applicant? No questions? Jaime, what do you think, yes, no or maybe? MR. HAYES - I'm balanced. I can't see any reason, I also did identically to what Jim said. I patronize stores in that Plaza, and there's never a parking problem whatsoever, and I can't see any - 48 - .___..,J "..../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) reason to deny this. I think updating h~s bathroom~ to comply with other government standards which are lmportant lS an admlrable thing to do. MR. THOMAS-Bonnie? MRS. LAPHAM-I've patronized that shopping plaza, too, at different times of the day, never had a parking problem. The biggest problem I have is trying to get out of there, which is hardly their fault. MR. THOMAS-Bob? MR. KARPELES-I have no problem. MR. THOMAS-Don? MR. O'LEARY-No problem. MR. THOMAS-Lou? MR. STONE-I have no problem. I will only say what I put down in my notes when I went by yesterday. On Number Three, relief substantial, how important is this parking thing, and Number Four, I've never seen the lot filled, if the whole lot applies to KFC. So I have no problem whatsoever. MR. THOMAS-Brian? MR. CUSTER-Well, since those crispy strips are one of the few things my kids will eat in a heartbeat, I frequent that location quite often, and I've never had a problem getting in or out of there. MR. THOMAS-I don't see any problem with this. Would anyone like to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-1997 M & W FOODS, INC. dba KFC, Introduced by Brian Custer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes: proj ect location Northgate Shopping Center. The applicant proposes to construct an addition to the existing KFC Restaurant located on Route 9. The number of parking spaces in the Northgate Shopping Center are not enough to satisfy the parking requirements and needs a variance approval. The following criteria were considered in this motion and the benefit to the applicant would be, the relief would allow the applicant to build a restaurant addition, which would include new seating and also putting in a restroom facility that meets the Code. Feasible alternatives are limited, to provide a lesser amount of relief from the Zoning Ordinance. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The front parking spaces are 119, where 171 spaces are required. The applicant proposes to have 117 where 181 spaces will be required. There is no detrimental effect to the local community and the neighborhood with the parking. This difficulty, I assume, is self-created since the applicant is putting on an addition, but it doesn't seem to have an impact. The motion recommends that we reduce the number of spaces from 181 to the proposed 117, which is a difference of 64 spaces. Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 1997, by the following vote: MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, should we reflect the fact that the Zoning Administrator gave us some information about where the Town is heading on parking requirements? MR. THOMAS-No. That's completely in their world. MR. STONE-Okay. - 49 - --- -..,/ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) MR. THOMAS-That's one world I don't like to get into, but I have to every once in a while. AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE MR. THOMAS-There you go, put that addition on. MR. MATHIS-Thank you. I enjoyed being here tonight. Most people probably would have been bored. I found it quite interesting. I was interested to see what you did with the carport, and I think what you did was the right thing. It's a tough one. That's a real tough issue. I think, Chris, you had one in Lake George where you took down a whole building. MR. THOMAS-Yes. MR. MATHIS-When you were there. MR. MARTIN - We had a tough one there with the Hodgkins, the foundation. MR. THOMAS-Yes. They had a foundation in and everything. The Town of Bolton passed a law stating that if someone puts a building that's not in compliance, without a variance from the Zoning Board, there's a fine of up to $2500. Did you know that? MRS. LAPHAM-Yes. I just saw that in the paper. MR. THOMAS-That's something that this Town ought to look into real quick, since three of the variances tonight had something to do with that. MR. MARTIN-Well, what you're seeing the effects of, too, is that this shouldn't be looked upon as the Town's not doing its job. It's just the position of John Goralski as Code Compliance Officer, going around now and looking at nothing but local Code concerns, is starting to, these are the types of things you're going to find more and more of. MR. STONE-But are we enforcing, after he finds, I mean, we are. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. STONE-Because that's, every once in a while I hear, the Town doesn't really want to enforce. MR. MARTIN-No, no. That does not happen. MR. STONE-Good. I'm glad to hear it. MR. THOMAS-What about John F. Schriner? MR. MARTIN-He is sick again. MR. THOMAS-So? MR. STONE-It's postponed, I was told. MR. MARTIN-He couldn't be here because he was sick. MR. THOMAS-So? That's no reason we can't go through. We've had the public hearing. It's closed, if I'm not mistaken. MR. MARTIN-Well, you, technically, could do that if you'd like to, Mr. Chairman. - 50 - ~ -../ (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/19/97) MR. THOMAS-We better get these minutes. them. There's only a few of MR. STONE-You guys can't vote on them, and I can only vote on one of them. CORRECTION OF MINUTES December 18, 1996: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 18, 1996 AS PRINTED, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald O'Leary: Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Custer, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE January 15, 1997: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 1997 AS PRINTED, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Karpeles: Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. O'Leary, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Custer February 19, 1997: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 1997 AS PRINTED, Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone: Duly adopted this 19th day of March, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Custer, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Stone, Mr. O'Leary MR. THOMAS-Now, I have four sets of notes that I cannot get approved, and they are for July 24th, July 31st, August 21st, and September 4th. I would like to have it entered into the record that I cannot get a majority vote to approve the minutes of July 24th, July 31st, August 21st, or September 4th, and leave it at that. So I can get rid of these. I'll make a motion we adjourn. MR. STONE-Second it. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Thomas, Chairman - 51 -